Prior rigorous and deep asset structure can help games absorb funds from the market in the middle and later stages.

Author: jojonas

I suddenly remembered that the last time I specifically wrote about blockchain games was almost a year ago. In the past year, there have been many new changes in the field of blockchain games. In this article, I plan to extend some of my previous views, combined with recent projects, to discuss my observations and thoughts.

Review of Views

In the article in August 2022, I mentioned several major issues that blockchain game projects were facing at the time:

1. To go further, it is necessary to have a more out-of-the-box narrative. However, due to being placed in a market that is not completely compatible, the real source of payment has sharply decreased, making it difficult to cover development and distribution costs.
2. The tokenization of capital brings about trading freedom, causing the project party to lose the pricing power of in-game assets.
3. Earning continues to cause sustained value outflow in the game ecosystem. The more users there are, the greater the economic pressure (non-linear), while the consumption brought by gameplay (setting aside reserves) is limited.

I also expressed some other views:

1. Ponzi schemes (cash flow difficult to cover high investment returns) are still a good means of user growth in the middle and early stages.
2. If blockchain games are to develop in the long term, they still need to gradually achieve "user education" for audiences who prioritize gold farming. The next development direction should be stable economically, with gameplay and gold farming coexisting, rather than directly cutting off gold farming. However, in the longer term, the core advantage of blockchain games is not in gold farming, but in freely verifiable transactions.
3. Products such as skill2earn and MOBA, which focus on competitive gameplay, need to avoid user loss caused by a "lemon market." The innovative gameplay structure, where players engage in or cooperate in games based on incomplete information they each possess, will be an important factor in raising the ceiling for these types of games.
4. The stability of the economic system of blockchain games will increasingly depend on player co-construction: the best incentive is the coordination and consistency between player contributions and long-term project development (incentive compatibility).
5. The strategy of traditional pay-to-win games (serve to earn) is still effective, but it requires corresponding market coverage and product foundations.

In the article in October 2022, I mainly envisioned a leasing model. Although it had many flaws, since I reread it, I also took the opportunity to organize the views in the article:

1. The evaluation system of projects by non-gaming crypto participants (trading activity, circulation, market value space, asset structure, etc.) is different from that of gamers. They play multiple roles such as liquidity providers, arbitrageurs, and speculators.
2. Considering both non-crypto players and crypto players will lead to a disconnect in economic design and gaming experience. The same game behavior may require different incentive allocations based on different asset holdings.
3. The leasing system involves resource allocation. At the time of my summary, I understood it as an exchange of time and money. Later, I had a deeper understanding, believing that in addition to simultaneous exchanges of different types of resources, "leasing" actually includes exchanges of resources across different periods.
4. Incentives for tenants, or low-threshold leasing, are necessary. For some players, it is a low capital threshold, and it can also be a low cognitive threshold and low operational threshold.
5. Instant matching is the core demand of the leasing system.
6. The leasing system is not suitable for early game release but is suitable as a second growth point when the project has initially stabilized and is about to face a broader market.

This article delves into the details of the topic of "leasing." Over the past year, I have also seen many projects, but only a few have used built-in leasing mechanisms, and their effectiveness has not been seen. I am more inclined to believe that the reason for this is that there are still no products in the current market that have reached the "out-of-the-box" stage, and most assets do not have the "practicality" available for leasing.

In January 2023, in this article, I emphasized the reasons why I am most optimistic about blockchain games in all sub-sectors: the product may be the fastest to land and the narrative combination is the most natural. However, the market is currently in a stage of extremely high uncertainty, and both project parties and users are basically blindfolded, with doubts arising. But I am looking forward to the emergence of several successful products, which will build confidence for everyone in terms of revenue and lifecycle, and also bring some mature and referenceable models to this track. In this article, I also included some thoughts on the industrial landscape:

1. Cloud services, game engines, and other traditional games that can be seamlessly ported; FOCG may see new engines, mainly because they change many technical logics in game development.
2. Due to the requirement for high speed and low fees, the emergence of one-click chain deployment SDKs will gradually make dedicated game chains the optimal solution for some products. Currently, considering the short lifespan of most products, general-purpose public chains can meet the demand.
3. Wallets (account systems), payments, trading markets, etc., can completely use general products, but from the player experience perspective, customization is still urgently needed.
4. Community incubation will be a good direction, such as loot, Treasure DAO, Matchbox DAO, etc.
5. Due to the current promotion structure mainly based on community groups and the limited number of excellent products, game information aggregation services are somewhat redundant. They are suitable as subsidiary functions of comprehensive platforms or for a strong presence in the FOCG field.
6. The current community tools have low certainty in reaching information and are not specifically optimized for blockchain games. I look forward to the emergence of customized blockchain game community tools.
7. Data service providers have a high survival difficulty, but based on the core products of data services, if they develop towards portal aggregation, they are most likely to become the entry point for players into blockchain games, in addition to wallets, and can extend to the distribution of small-scale blockchain games (including launchpads).

In this article, I also mentioned a deeply insightful point: players first, then economic design. It was from that time that my focus on economic design gradually extended from the internal and external circulation of games to market operations, distribution, and other aspects. The core of the operation of crypto projects lies in the community, and blockchain game projects should be the same. Due to the convenience and flexibility provided by token tools, it is clear that we can do much more than traditional operations. So, I returned to those four words - "incentive compatibility." How to make the community and projects stand together for a longer period, how to leverage community consensus at a lower cost, and how to let the community grow organically are all worth long-term learning and exploration.

This article also has two more parts, which respectively mention my views on FOCG and my expectations for "gamified products." In the subsequent articles, I will continue to emphasize my expectations for "gamified products" because I am really looking forward to them…

The introduction and prospects of Fully on-chain games - jojonas this article mainly discusses FOCG and compares it with current web2.5 blockchain games and traditional games in terms of gameplay depth, art, economic systems, distribution, operation and marketing, financing, and player experience.

Games have extremely high demands for computing and, as the ninth art, the trend of more "realistic" multi-sensory stimuli is also one of the trends. The demand for peak hardware performance and the pursuit of security and fairness as decentralized infrastructure by blockchain pose a sustained contradiction. This means that the further breakthroughs in FOCG will focus on gameplay and mechanism design. From the perspectives of gameplay design and mechanism design, I also believe that they are the two major directions for the future development of FOCG:

1. New gameplay with simple rules (high technical feasibility) but full of countless possibilities for games such as poker, mahjong, and Go. Due to the global clock characteristics of blockchain and the strengthening of the "fog of war" element by ZK technology, "information" in these games will receive unprecedented attention as a resource.

2. From the perspective of mechanism design, products will lean more towards Game-like DeFi Pro; Ponzi masters, actuarial elites, and top hackers will unleash their most powerful moves, engaging in a great battle in this wilderness, constructing a more brutal amusement park than the traditional financial market…

Of course, as long as you don't feel the loss, being able to personally participate in such an innovative project that crystallizes the wisdom of so many human beings is also something to look forward to~

Project Review

During this period, I have also studied many popular projects, witnessed the rise of some convergent patterns, and lamented the cruelty of the market. In this article, I will briefly introduce and provide some personal insights on several key projects that I have been observing. Of course, since I haven't deeply explored many of these projects, these are just my initial thoughts, and I welcome in-depth players or industry professionals to exchange views!

Lumiterra

The most direct impression of the entire project: this team should not be underestimated.

In terms of development resource allocation, the team has built a product matrix, including the game itself, the financial module Lumi Finance, the operational support tg bot, dedicated chain and wallet, and the social module sosotribe. Roughly estimating, the number of developers working on the blockchain part is higher than that of the game part. The game part is relatively simple, but the integration with the financial module is smooth. I believe this is the team's best leveraging strategy based on existing development resources.

1. Gameplay

The gameplay leans towards sandbox RPG, involving gathering, planting, and combat, corresponding to three equally important professions. The daily behaviors and resource needs of different professions are cross-matched. Based on the basic supply and demand matching, a resource loop is built layer by layer according to levels. I often mention the industrial chain because the real economy operates based on the industrial chain, where demand is transmitted like a spider web and fulfilled. "Consumption" reflects some of these needs. The advantage of applying the industrial chain in the game economy is that it has higher robustness compared to same-production and same-sales models. Lumiterra has created a very simple industrial chain model.

2. DeFi Part

In the DeFi part, the financial module, Lumiterra integrates designs from Olympus (bottom price reserve support), over-collateralized stablecoins (Nirvana), and the OLM model proposed by Bond protocol. (Of course, Nirvana's design itself also borrowed from Olympus.)

I won't go into too much detail (you can check the Whitepaper Overview - Lumi Finance for more information), but I'll briefly explain its core logic.

The project has issued a core token, and it uses a specialized virtual AMM model for LUA transactions, rather than the mainstream AMM model. In this virtual AMM, liquidity is divided into two parts: market liquidity and bottom price liquidity. Once the market liquidity grows beyond a certain condition, a portion of it is converted into bottom price liquidity - the latter is used as reserve liquidity to anchor the bottom price. In extreme cases, when the price falls to the bottom price, the reserve mechanism is used to redeem and destroy (at a stable price).

Players can obtain LUAUSD (in-game stablecoin) and LUAOP (options) by pledging LUA. The stablecoin will be combined with some mainstream stablecoins to form a CURVE LP, and LUAOP can be purchased at the bottom price (players profit from the price difference, and the ecosystem gains additional reserve liquidity). The stablecoin obtained by pledging LUA can be used for trading in-game NFT assets, and the curve LP, in addition to trading fee incentives, will also receive $LUAG (governance token).

Through this mechanism, the price of $LUA will be stabilized and has potential upward momentum. As the game develops and trading demand increases, more $LUA will be needed for collateral. Through the conversion from $LUA to $LUAUSD, there are actually no tokens in the game, and the trading prices of materials/equipment and other assets produced in the game are isolated from market perception. The market is more focused on the project's blind boxes and the price of LUA tokens, while these assets, through continuous empowerment and effective growth, can attract more funds and strengthen consensus in a positive cycle.

3. Social Module

While the financial module is the most eye-catching aspect of Lumiterra, in the social module, sosotribe uses the mechanism from friend.tech. According to the whitepaper, players can customize the bond curve, transaction fee allocation, and incentive mechanisms for their personal tribes. Tribes need to consume LUA to create, and subsequent tribe key transactions are settled in LUA; the same quadratic function curve is used. However, compared to friend.tech, it actually lacks a few key elements. The focus going forward can be on whether its tg bot can leverage the Telegram user group (even so, Telegram as a general IM tool does not have the social media environment that Twitter has).

Sosotribe has its own launch token MFC, which can be understood more as an incentive for engagement. There is also a type of ERC20 token that is points, similarly determined based on some invitation and trading behaviors. The overall design of the social module seems very rushed, perhaps because it is still early in the product's development, and a clear logic for its viability has not been seen at the moment, so I won't go into too much detail here.

4. Summary

In summary:

1) In terms of the product, the "game + DeFi" dual-drive framework has been established, but the social module needs further refinement.

2) The use of tg bot to assist in some operational and asset issuance matters is quite innovative; looking forward to a closer integration of tg bot with the social module in the future.

3) The in-game assets are smoothly isolated from externally issued assets. However, the simple game content determines that the value support for in-game assets is insufficient. The ultimate destination for gold farming in the game, whether it's LUAG or a new asset category, will most likely still rely on external assets.

4) The design of incremental lottery tickets (apologies for not mentioning this earlier) shows the game's awareness of self-digesting bubbles.

Gas Hero

Gas Hero is a project that I am very interested in, not only because it is the second product of the STEPN team, but also because of the community participation and co-creation approach used in its early promotion process, which I strongly agree with. However, to my shame, I didn't have the awareness to buy some assets before the game went live, and after some analysis and judgment, I didn't get involved after the launch. So, I actually haven't played this game at all. My personal views are formed through asking friends, reading the whitepaper, and reading beginner tutorials.

1. Asset Structure

The most impressive aspect of Gas Hero is its organized and extensive asset structure - 175 cities, each with an unlimited number of regions (initially 2), each region with 9 guilds, and from the guilds down to tribes, bases, and players (base vehicles). Further breaking down the players, each player can equip 6 heroes, and each hero can be equipped with weapons and pets, and there are upgrade costs for bases, heroes, pets, etc…

This kind of asset structure and its world view setting (elder elections, guild wars, tribe wars, etc.) is internally consistent from a narrative perspective. In other words, players may not even realize the issues before they "accept" this structure and "accept" that they need to fill the gaps formed by these asset structures with a large amount of funds.

Perhaps Gas Hero has captured this user characteristic - there is a large amount of capital on the chain seeking destinations. As long as the economy can operate stably, this structure can greatly absorb funds, and the tax revenue extracted from the fund circulation can meet the project's income needs and drive the continued operation through mechanism design.

Gas Hero's asset structure design is undoubtedly excellent. It's just that the conditions for achieving the final outcome may have been overlooked or confused.

2. Social Design

The gameplay of Gas Hero leans towards social + casual strategy types. In terms of the depth of exploration in the game itself, it's actually similar to Lumiterra, with a framework of "heroes + pets + weapons," and a lot of gameplay expectations are placed on subsequent social aspects such as tribes and guilds. Even the influence of big players will affect earnings, which in a way, creates some "forced social interaction." In addition, the audience at this stage has different social characteristics compared to traditional social products and social games.

The current social core within the game is driven by tax distribution. The World Elder/Mayor/District Chief/Guild Leader/Tribe Leader regularly share 20% of the tax revenue each. There are only 7 World Elders, elected based on donations of GMT, and so there are many games of strategy. However, due to problems in the underlying social structure, a large number of low-income players are lost, making it difficult to have an effect, and ultimately it may become just a numbers game.

3. Core Asset Annihilation

Gas Hero has a very bold design, which is the hero death mechanism. In the game, except for the creation hero, different heroes have different death deadlines based on their quality. For example, the initial version sets a 20-day death period for ordinary heroes. On the positive side, it is beneficial for the health of the economic cycle, greatly reducing the output pressure, and establishing the psychological cost of players and guiding reinvestment through the time difference of different behaviors.

But the question is, will players accept it?

This question seems easy to answer. It's a game setting, so many players are playing, how could they not accept it? But I have always had doubts about this. From the perspective of behavioral motivation, as long as players can break even within the deadline, whether they accept it or not, it does not prevent them from participating. However, the price of assets fluctuates at any time, especially in the case of early speculation, some players may not break even or even suffer losses. So, is it just consumption? Not really, because in any game, the accumulation of player behavior will leave behind asset evidence, which is actually very important and necessary feedback. Not only losing money, but also losing all the heroes in the game, either continue to invest (prejudice: will lose) or leave (maybe some people really want to continue playing? Forced to leave), this is really a very risky design…

Of course, if you say that you can achieve extremely precise numerical control and dynamic adjustments, then I… don't believe you. Can't the market price also be controlled to the predetermined point by smashing money if it's not enough? It's not very realistic…

This is the first layer. The second layer is actually more profound, similar to Soros's famous reflexivity theory, that is, the hero death mechanism will cause many waiting players to have a preconceived anxiety about breaking even and give up entering the game. Most players actually enter the game in the early stages, because everyone has established a similar cognitive framework, as long as the assets are there, even if the assets continue to depreciate, it is still a high-odds decision. And most players' choices based on this framework will in turn push the actual results in the direction consistent with their cognition. The hero death mechanism largely inhibits these behaviors (bottom fishing, early investment mentality), and new funds have doubts about entering, naturally maximizing the disadvantage of low NFT liquidity.

4. No In-Game Tokens

Both Lumiterra and Gas Hero have chosen the design of not producing tokens in the game. It is clear that they want to avoid the consequences of the death spiral of sub-coins in the previous generation of blockchain games. In Gas Hero, assets are all traded using GMT and no other tokens are used.

Strictly speaking, whether there are in-game tokens or not has the greatest impact on player perception. The price fluctuations of tokens can influence community consensus, which is equivalent to adding a layer of butterfly effect. The price fluctuations of assets are relatively less sensitive and have more room for adjustment, after all, a game has so many assets - players' perception largely assimilates it with normal asset price fluctuations.

Without in-game tokens, consideration needs to be given to the selection of the trading currency for many in-game NFT assets. Either the liquidity is sufficient (GMT falls into this category, as well as others like ETH) and can be absorbed by the market, or the currency issuance is controllable (LUAUSD falls into this category). Lumiterra and Gas Hero have coincidentally chosen the method of not producing in-game tokens, which I think will also be a trend. In-game incentives will be more likely to be released in the form of in-game assets, because, like tokens, assets are easier to find counterparts with real demand. This is a better choice for both players and projects.

Cards Ahoy!

I have deeply experienced this card game from Netease and found it to be one of the more representative products on the current market, so I wanted to talk about it.

The third test started in January this year, and the tickets were obtained from the previously issued NFT asset rights. The in-game card NFTs use real assets, while the token CAC is in the form of test coins. Apart from a Snow King team battle, there were almost no test activities, mainly relying on the ladder (the ladder rewards are almost zero). So, the popularity of this test can be seen as reflecting the level of gameplay.

1. Player Guidance

For most games, the new player guidance in the first half hour largely determines whether players will stay and whether they will bring in LTV in the future. There are so many things in modern society that can attract users' interest, and there are many players who quit after playing for a few minutes if they are not satisfied (excluding those who buy assets first). In addition to some basic guidance systems, Ahoy's trial card system can be used directly for formal battles, although each card will reduce gold farming income by 20%. For a card game, this may be a good solution.

2. Depth of Gameplay

The core gameplay of the game lies in deck building and adjusting the card sequence before each battle, which is an extension of the model of the Battle of Red Cliffs. This seemingly simple gameplay can theoretically be expanded to a deeper level, such as daily changes in stamina (current), adding new racial factions, types of skills, and making adjustments over time. It actually reminds me of the very popular Marvel Snap game overseas.

But in terms of the content seen in the third test, with three factions, each faction has at most two types of play styles. In terms of content depth, it is still too barren. Although many players have had a great experience, it still cannot avoid deep-seated problems. Only updating factions is not enough; interaction between factions can make addition become multiplication, which is the minimum requirement for a TCG game. Otherwise, the demand for in-game cards may be severely lacking.

3. Economic System

The economic system is built on a treasure chest mechanism, and although there are many items in the treasure chest, it does not create a desire to open the chest, mainly due to a large number of useless cards and a very obvious sense of loss. Due to the constraints of the gameplay, the degree of differentiation between cards is greatly compressed, and the cause of useless cards is the lack of unique combat requirements, which in turn leads to a high probability of losses due to opening all useless cards. What's terrible is that due to free trading, opening a large number of chests is far less effective than directly purchasing the required cards - players' gaming pursuits are directly ignored.

The card upgrade mechanism uses the same system as Clash Royale, but it does not consider the fundamental differences from Clash Royale - the latter is essentially a game where micro-control is greater than light spending, which is why its casual competitive nature is established. Only when there is a significant difference in spending, can the level of micro-control not change the outcome, which is why I emphasize its casual competitive nature. In Ahoy, which has automatic battles, there is no micro-control, and spending becomes the only decisive factor. This makes the design of the card growth system a dilemma: high growth leads to a numerical game and player loss; low growth leads to low cost-effectiveness of synthesis, and assets lack consumption.

In terms of gold farming output, 1v1 battles are the core gold farming gameplay, and the winner receives a CAC reward. CAC can be used to open treasure chests, which brings us back to the previously mentioned problem of the chest opening experience. The result is that CAC has been declining all the way…

4. Matching Mechanism

For most battle games, the design of the matching mechanism is crucial. Ahoy is quite clever in this regard because it does not rely on real-time matching. Due to the design of automatic battles, Ahoy can completely do something similar to the matching in Clash of Clans to supplement the player experience.

In addition, after losing a battle, players will continuously encounter opponents with very bad card combinations, which is probably the official's low-income mechanism. Skyweaver, which also made a card blockchain game before, had enough depth in gameplay, but it couldn't be as carefree as Ahoy, after all, the complexity of AI requires a high level. Later, when I logged into Skyweaver to relive the old dream, I found that I couldn't match with any opponents, which was very frustrating. In comparison, Ahoy has much less pressure in terms of PVP…

Matr1x

I didn't play Matr1x in the several tests, mainly because it's quite intense, and I'm not a fan of FPS games (I was addicted to Fortnite and Overwatch for a while, but left due to being too bad). However, the asset issuance and narrative of Matr1x actually set a good template for many projects.

The rhythm of asset issuance is roughly as follows:

1. YATC (First Generation)

Similar to the MVP of Memeland, platform-level NFT, and esports narrative; some are given away and some are kept, but most of the ones given away have not entered the market, so the market value is relatively simple, with a low market value/trading volume ratio. The high market value makes YATC (trophy) a business card for Matr1x, bringing many positive effects:

1) Popularity and dissemination. Not everyone wants to play a shooting game, but if the NFT series of a blockchain game project reaches 20ETH, people still want to know about it.

2) Confidence in subsequent series. As mentioned earlier, there is a reflexivity relationship between consensus and actual market prices.

3) Cost substitution. A NFT worth 10+ETH, after the project stabilizes its market value, how to use the hundreds of them on hand becomes important. Of course, it cannot be overused, as the floor is still paper, but at least there are more cards to play.

2. Matr1x 2061 (Second Generation)

Representing the rights of shooting games, the pfp series imitates Azuki's style but also fits the fashionable narrative of the game itself.

Accompanying this pfp series is a world story background of millions of words, the early release of game characters, elements reflecting the world view, and the convergence of Eastern and Western cultures. The forging rights prioritize YATC holders.

The 2061 series played an important role in subsequent tests.

3. KUKU (Third Generation)

Representing platform IP rights (narrative triangle: esports, games, IP culture), so it is positioned higher than the 2061 series.

How to qualify for the whitelist?

I believe you have already guessed - some of the whitelist comes from staking the first and second generations. Specific rules are not stated due to being too detailed.

4. FIRE & MAX (Tokens)

These two, one is a game token and the other is a platform token, currently have no significant differences and both play the role of the ultimate target of expectations.

For example, in the latest max event, the MAX airdrop distribution is determined by basic points and point multipliers (user invitations). In previous tests, test rewards often included MAX tokens, FIRE tokens, and many other game assets. It is because of the expectations of these rewards that the value of test tickets is anchored - it makes it natural for the official to sell tickets and also sets the pricing expectations for early asset staking tickets, thereby stabilizing the price of early assets.

The asset issuance structure of Matr1x is a template that I think is very suitable for blockchain games at this stage. Unlike other segmented fields, blockchain game projects can often leverage high market effects with low-cost small teams. Blockchain games not only have a high investment cycle, but more importantly, the market trend is uncertain, the economic design is complex, and the risk of failure is high. Therefore, the issuance method that is more suitable for blockchain game projects should be to synchronize asset issuance with community operations before operation, and then continue technical and economic testing as the game development continues.

The asset issuance structure of Matr1x can largely solve some problems for both the project and the players. Through the issuance and continuous empowerment of early assets, the project can have some cash flow during continuous development, avoiding the embarrassing situation of long-term lack of resources (this is the endgame for most game development); the aggregation of early asset holders and the entry of new players during the entire process are processes of gradually forming consensus, and everyone becomes a common interest party; this is rarely seen in traditional games.

The multi-level asset structure also solves the problem of operational topics. The early issuance stage of the project is subdivided, corresponding to the multi-level asset structure, and the main line of operations is very clear. Each type of asset's rigorous design bears the responsibility for a certain aspect of the game, for example, the 2061 series has played a significant role in IP promotion.

Early assets also solve the problems of test qualifications and test rewards - these holders are the most suitable test subjects and targets for test rewards. The project has obtained the most real feedback and data, empowered early assets, and reduced operating costs; early player investment has received returns and played the game they believe in.

As for the tokens that are just starting to show their potential and are still half-hidden, the same logic can be extended. As the ultimate target of expectations and the role of digesting bubbles, just follow this line of thought.

Reflection and Prospects

Due to personal limitations, I did not mention many projects in the summary mentioned in this article.

For example, xpet, which turns playing games into reverse futures by consuming decisions; through Twitter's random treasure chests, it has indeed achieved high awareness at a low cost. For example, Hero of Mavia, which imitates the gameplay of Clash of Clans, went to great lengths to avoid virtual currency-related policies in distribution channels. For example, Blocklords, which imitates the gameplay of Empire Age, after wasting one of my hands, I found out that it was the same team as Seascape before (cut me twice, this time it's a physical wrist cut). For example, big time, an early blockchain game giant, issued a series of assets, suddenly went public when early holders were deeply buried, entered a frenzy phase, and then was morally sanctioned because it was too frenzied. For example, SkyArk, which relies on bold promotion to ride the heat, and uses a method called a lottery but is actually an auction, issued thousands of NFTs at a price of 0.6ETH each…

In short, through these projects, I think there are also many things worth learning and thinking about, so I will do some thinking and prospects here as a conclusion to this article.

Asset Structure

Gas Hero provides a case, that is, a rigorous and deep asset structure done in advance can help the game attract funds from the market in the mid to late stages (of course, it must be able to reach the mid to late stages first). In contrast, the asset structure of many games is actually quite chaotic, without enough "pits" buried and the "nutrients" to feed these pits, so it is very difficult for funds to enter.

It is also important to consider where different player roles are positioned within such an asset structure framework. When will players enter and when will they leave? These are closely related to game design.

In addition, in addition to in-game assets, external assets are also worth careful consideration, as seen in the case of Matr1x. External assets play a role similar to salespeople, marketing the game's assets to the overall encrypted market, because the vast majority of coin speculators basically won't go into the game to play it…

Isolation of External Assets

Many games have taken some isolation measures to make the price performance of external assets relatively independent of the game's economic cycle, more influenced by the community, market, and project side. The reason is not difficult to think about. Early blockchain games did not have external assets, and basically used the prices of in-game assets to reflect overall health. However, due to the collapse of the economic system, the asset prices plummeted, affecting consensus, and ultimately the entire game failed.

To be honest, this fact is too cruel to game project parties (even No Man's Sky can be updated for several years and return to its peak). After doing the isolation of external assets, not only can the content and gameplay of the game be relatively isolated from operational promotion, but also if there are problems with the internal economy, it can be self-rescued through external assets to stabilize the community and through timely economic policy adjustments.

Incentive Compatibility

I mentioned some "issues worth exploring and learning in the long term" earlier, including: how to keep the community and the project together for a longer period? How to leverage community consensus at a lower cost? How to let the community grow organically? These can all be addressed with an incentive-compatible approach.

The so-called incentive compatibility adjusts parameters to achieve alignment of interests between individuals and the collective (different participants).

Existing solutions involve early participants holding early issued assets, similar to early stockholding, and they must hold on until the stock is issued (IPO), otherwise they can only seek a buyer in advance in a manner similar to VC/PE (although liquidity is much better). With early participants holding stocks, they will naturally help with promotion and have aligned interests.

So how to achieve "long-term"?

I think the answer lies in "stable expectations," but I won't go into specifics.

Financial Modules

In fact, Lumiterra has given all blockchain game projects a reminder, that is, to make good use of the tools at hand, perhaps not just in their current usage.

Nirvana is a project that most people know, similar to the Olympus project; OLM is known to even fewer people, but it is still an existing achievement. Innovation in traditional finance is actually more reflected in the design of complex derivatives, not well known to the public. This actually means that innovation on the blockchain can be more complex and amazing. And all of these can be part of blockchain game projects, and it's just an external module that doesn't fundamentally affect the gaming experience.

Compared to games limited by traditional issuance, blockchain games are actually more open, so they can accommodate more content that developers want to express or gameplay they want to implement. At least that's the case at this stage.

Social Modules

Crypto always brings exciting innovative works, and FT is one of them, even though its template comes from Deso a few years ago.

The social aspect of traditional games is quite distinct: for single-player buyout-oriented games, social interaction is more about the online experience, basically based on existing relationships; while MMORPGs with inherently built-in social environments have focused heavily on social interaction, with various design layers emerging. Different from the experience of real-world familiar or unfamiliar social interactions, we can call it "virtual social interaction".

Based on blockchain, social interaction can be said to add a "financial" element on top of "virtual social interaction", where social resources officially become social capital. As a result, the derivative game dynamics are expected to be strong. Blockchain games combine the characteristics of all three, and it is worth looking forward to what kind of social experience they can ultimately create and what genius designs can emerge from the social modules.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。