Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Justin Kan: Web3 games don’t need to lure players with profit

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 180 posts

Re: Justin Kan: Web3 games don’t need to lure players with profit

#151

Post by charcircuit »

malermeister wrote: post #138
charcircuit wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"So a BF player could use COD skins?" Something more realistic is can a player trade BF skins for COD skins. There doesn't need to be compatibility built into the game. Just having them as NFTs on the same chain unlocks new possibilities. For example instead of trading a BF player could lock up an expensive skin and borrow some cheaper COD skins to use for a weekend to show off at an esports tournament. After the we…

And Activision and EA would agree to this why exactly?

Because it's cheaper to reuse the web3 ecosystem compared to spending resources recreating your own version. It saves development time and is a proconsumer move.

Re: Justin Kan: Web3 games don’t need to lure players with profit

#152

Post by charcircuit »

malermeister wrote: post #137
charcircuit wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to do so. You could make them just show up as a png in some menu. Or just not show up in the game at all. There is value in having cross game resources. Take for example a collection of racing simulators which you can import a car to drive around against AI. You could have a standard for staring a model for the car and stats about it that games should use to customize the experience of using it.

Why would I buy something that just shows up as a png in some menu? Why would I accept a car bought in some other game as a developer trying to make money? How would that even work? Need for speed and Forza for example have dramatically different driving models. Does sharing stats between those even make sense? What about licensing deals? Money exchanges hands when real life brands are used in games. Not sure they'd…

>Why would I buy something that just shows up as a png in some menu?

Because in the game it's for it actually does something.

>How would that even work?

They would need to come up with some kind of standard.

>Need for speed and Forza for example have dramatically different driving models.

You would want to standardize on one to try and keep things consistent.

>Does sharing stats between those even make sense?

Having the car you paid for be separate from the simulator you use to drive it makes sense.

>What about licensing deals?

Whoever is selling you the car NFT would license it instead of the game.

Re: Justin Kan: Web3 games don’t need to lure players with profit

#153

Post by mattdesl »

yunohn wrote: post #150
mattdesl wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intermediaries like Apple are not the ones building and interested in this, it is the game developers like those currently building Dark Forest and their players. This should not run on ETH mainnet, it should run on a L2 rollup that allows transactions to be submitted with fees that are in fractions of a cent. The L2 can be built atop ETH to allow users to permissionlessly withdraw tokens to it and to inherit the sec…

Apple/Google do not want to allow fee-less in-app transactions. The game developers also don’t want to allow a free in-game market. This is something only consumers want, but then the creators won’t make money. Either way, consumers won’t get to decide this. Why do you need a roll up? What security do you need if the L2 itself is able to manage a simple ledger…

The game developers can charge for the upfront cost of purchasing the game and starting an account. They can also charge a take-rate for each transaction in their official marketplace (this is how OpenSea makes money, and it's also how Minecraft Marketplace makes money).

There are also plenty of indie game developers who are happy to publish games for free, without taking profit.

> Why do you need a roll up? What security do you need if the L2 itself is able to manage a simple ledger…

The main benefit of the roll up compared to a simple ledger is that you can still use all the same blockchain features such as issuing ERC20/ERC721 assets, creating decentralized markets, escrowed auctions, and so forth. The benefit of a rollup compared to a side-chain like Polygon is that it is theoretically more secure. At no point can the rollup owner control user funds, and they also cannot block a user from withdrawing their assets from the L2 back to ETH mainnet.

Re: Justin Kan: Web3 games don’t need to lure players with profit

#154

Post by jspaetzel »

smt88 wrote: post #2

> “I think the idea of creating digital assets, and then taxing everyone for all the transactions around them is a good model,” Kan said. I don't think he has the slightest idea what players want, because this isn't it. This is exactly what players are raging against: games optimized for the creators' greed, not for the players' enjoyment. It doesn't sound like more fun than an existing game by that description, and…

Some people like this, those people are gamblers, not gamers.

Re: Justin Kan: Web3 games don’t need to lure players with profit

#155

Post by strikelaserclaw »

vlunkr wrote: post #58

These crypto gaming people are so entertaining. They combine all of the worst elements to come out of gaming in the last couple of decades, leave gaping holes in their implementation plans, then present it like it's the next iPhone. Truly brilliant.

A lot of people are looking for the next big thing since the internet, and all the truly revolutionary things are hard (much harder than building a website or an app), so you get a lot of people trying very hard with block chain technology, to make it the next internet.

Re: Justin Kan: Web3 games don’t need to lure players with profit

#156

Post by antifa »

swalsh wrote: post #33

In theory, I actually like the idea of games connected to the blockchain. The issue is, now your little funtime activity has serious tax implications. Imagine this, there's a neat little space pirates game. You buy an NFT ship, you buy some space missles, some fuel, contract a crew, and you go out. Maybe the dollar cost of all this was $60. Cool. You go out, you blow up the first ship you found. You spent 3 missles a…

> Maybe the dollar cost of all this was $60. Cool.

Minting fees for NFTs range from $70 to $300. I'd expect to pay $1000 minimum for a ship that's actually good.

Re: Justin Kan: Web3 games don’t need to lure players with profit

#157

Post by antifa »

LilDioBrando wrote: post #120
swalsh wrote: post #33

In theory, I actually like the idea of games connected to the blockchain. The issue is, now your little funtime activity has serious tax implications. Imagine this, there's a neat little space pirates game. You buy an NFT ship, you buy some space missles, some fuel, contract a crew, and you go out. Maybe the dollar cost of all this was $60. Cool. You go out, you blow up the first ship you found. You spent 3 missles a…

In what way this game should sound appealing? It's like a normal space game, but now you have to pay 10 dollar to shoot a missile. Doesn't seem very cool

If I'm really paying $60 for a fake space ship and $10 to fire a fake missle... fireworks are cheaper and real. HumbleBundle probably has multiple better spaceship games in the next $100 worth of bundles. I could probably buy 5-10 better space ship games on steam or itch.io right now for for $100.

Re: Justin Kan: Web3 games don’t need to lure players with profit

#158

Post by yunohn »

mattdesl wrote: post #153
yunohn wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple/Google do not want to allow fee-less in-app transactions. The game developers also don’t want to allow a free in-game market. This is something only consumers want, but then the creators won’t make money. Either way, consumers won’t get to decide this. Why do you need a roll up? What security do you need if the L2 itself is able to manage a simple ledger…

The game developers can charge for the upfront cost of purchasing the game and starting an account. They can also charge a take-rate for each transaction in their official marketplace (this is how OpenSea makes money, and it's also how Minecraft Marketplace makes money). There are also plenty of indie game developers who are happy to publish games for free, without taking profit. > Why do you need a roll up? What sec…

One time payment games and micro transaction games already exist. Consumers prefer the former and despite the latter, and absolutely hate ones which have both! Are you a gamer at all?

The roll up part makes no sense at all, I think you’re missing my point entirely.

Re: Justin Kan: Web3 games don’t need to lure players with profit

#159

Post by Gene_Parmesan »

Nursie wrote: post #96
swalsh wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a crypto guy, I like what it enables. But after using defi for a while, and dealing with the huge tax headaches it has caused me, this was the first thing that came to my mind. If you're building a web3 game, and you don't offer a tool to export your in-game transactions to an easily importable turbotax format. US players can't play it. But the problem is more complicated, everything in crypto is composable. So I…

This all sounds ... horrific. I can't understand why anyone would want to play the game you describe, because as soon as you're hooking in actual finance ... what you have now is a job. And much like with Axie infinity, it's a job that can only keep paying as long as there is either VC capital to burn or an influx of new people willing to pay your salary.

In my opinion, the sort of person who is into this kind of idea is the sort of person for whom finance is a game. These people want to be the ones gaming the system and making money off of other people who are playing. They don't want to just be puttering around in a fake spaceship, they want to be the ones loaning out money and etc.

It's why I think every p2e game idea I've ever seen get proposed has had completely asinine sounding game play but plenty of opportunities to (in theory) make money off of taking advantage of lower sophistication players. The game play itself is secondary. What no one seems to recognize is that if the game itself isn't fun, there won't be any "normal" players around for them to fleece.

Re: Justin Kan: Web3 games don’t need to lure players with profit

#160

Post by mattdesl »

yunohn wrote: post #158
mattdesl wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The game developers can charge for the upfront cost of purchasing the game and starting an account. They can also charge a take-rate for each transaction in their official marketplace (this is how OpenSea makes money, and it's also how Minecraft Marketplace makes money). There are also plenty of indie game developers who are happy to publish games for free, without taking profit. > Why do you need a roll up? What sec…

One time payment games and micro transaction games already exist. Consumers prefer the former and despite the latter, and absolutely hate ones which have both! Are you a gamer at all? The roll up part makes no sense at all, I think you’re missing my point entirely.

The game developer can decide how to monetize. They can charge $0 or $1 or $50 for the game itself, and take 0% or 5% or 25% from each transaction in the UGC marketplace.

An "Ethereum Rollup" is just a "fast blockchain" that has very similar security guarantees as Ethereum. If you wanted to take payments, create UGC markets, and record asset ownership without a blockchain, you are back to centralized services and their constraints.

I do play and develop games and have spent $ on games, and would like more of my $ to go toward the game publisher and content creators rather than intermediaries and app stores. I also would like to own digital assets that are more composable, and not tied to a single company's servers or app stores. This is the model that Dark Forest[1] is exploring.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUtIiVUwB5o

Post reply on HN