Does GameFi Need To Change Now? Should We give up NFT?
GameFi has successfully become an unmissable trend among the investor community. However, investment cash flow had shown signs of withdrawing from this young sector quickly after the boom period, when most users decided to quit the game when they reached the desired income level.
Give up NFT to invest in GameFi.
It’s a silly decision to spend thousands of dollars just playing a video game. But Axie used to make that price threshold a popular entry fee during his peak development.
The reason comes in part from the influence of the NFT market. At that time, NFT collections were raised to millions of dollars but still attracted a large number of speculative investors: buying and holding until higher prices were resold. So spending thousands of dollars to buy NFT in-game suddenly doesn’t make much sense.
However, this price increases the level of risk for investors and puts pressure on the economy in the game. Because once you put thousands of dollars into the game, the players’ mindset will want to get the money back as quickly as possible. The activities of exploiting in-game resources (tokens/NFT assets) are carried out massively, which can push the game’s economy into inflation, requiring the competition to attract many new players to rebalance the supply and demand balance.
On the investor side, the high input pressure also makes them sweat calculation, making it challenging to be in the mood to enjoy the game. Some investors may object that the Play-to-Earn Gaming Guild was born to fix that. But if you look at the root of the problem, Crypto Gaming was held with the idea of allowing players to have full ownership of their gaming assets. So the Guild’s “leasing” NFT solution made the concept meaningless.
Stop copying “Ponzi” models at the DeFi ecosystem.
A little more refined, investors may have realized that the first play-to-earn titles were a combination of the characteristics of the NFT market and DeFi’s model. While few investors accept to buy in-game NFT at high prices and hope to be resold at higher prices, others believe in token games and wish to earn more passive income through staking pools without playing.
Adopting promotional models from the DeFi ecosystem has helped not only crypto games to attract original players easily but also to harm the economy in the game in the long run.
For example, the staking model in the current GameFi segment is applied in two main ways: stake tokens to receive more administrative tokens or receive a part of the revenue in the game. Both models promote speculative activities, helping large capital investors make more profit easily without playing games. In other words, it does not give real meaning to the sustainable development of games. On the contrary, the first model may cause serious administration token inflation, increasing the risk of price collapse.
Of course, the groundbreaking patterns of DeFi space do not permanently harm the play-to-earn games, and the problem to be solved here is that they need to be applied more selectively and creatively. Recently, some projects such as StarShark, and Elpis Battle had the idea of empowering lifestyle design.
The game and the parameters in the game for the players themselves through the operation of owning administrative tokens. This may be an idea worth observing and learning in the future.
Eliminate the expectation of making big profits from crypto gaming
As explained above, most players expected huge profits when it came to crypto gaming in the past time. However, there are no play-to-earn games that can offer attractive returns to players without encountering severe inflation.
Therefore, to travel long distances, crypto gaming needs to change the expectations of its players, from participating in fast money to playing entertainment and potentially getting some of the profits back from the time it has spent.
DOTA 2 is an excellent example of this model. This title is not a Play-to-earn game, but users can still reassign their in-game rewards to others for a certain amount of profit. And, even though most players spend more money on DOTA 2 than they earn, they are happy to enjoy it.
To sum up, crypto games need to change their goals from play-to-earn to play-and-earn before thinking about the possibility of sustainable development.
Build a “real game”
Most of the crypto games launched in the past have very sketchy construction, and all players need to do is click and breed. Therefore, the ability to hold back the players of these games when the profitability has problems is almost zero. No user is willing to continue playing without profit, and they leave quickly as soon as they see signs of a decline in profit.
Worse, many crypto games have been miserable when some individuals or gaming guilds put a large amount of capital into buying NFT assets, mass breeding, and then discharging them to the market.
Therefore, the next step towards the sustainable development of crypto games is to build “real games,” which can bring joy and attract players instead of just clicking to earn money.
DISCLAIMER: The Information on this website is provided as general market commentary and does not constitute investment advice. We encourage you to do your own research before investing.
Join CoinCu Telegram to keep track of news: https://t.me/coincunews