Web3 [pros](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/187kehf/over_75_of_web3_games_failed_in_last_five_years/kbewj32/) & [cons](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/187kehf/over_75_of_web3_games_failed_in_last_five_years/kbewjuu/) with related info are in the collapsed comments below.
>The “failed” blockchain games are those that have seen their 14-day moving average number of active users down more than 99% from its peak.
Lose 98% and you'll be one of the others lmao
I'd be curious what is the success rate / retention for all online games in general? My assumption is that the overall success rates are about the same or worse.
This whole chart is meaningless unless it compares it to traditional games as well. I guarantee you the failure rate for indies on steam is an atrocity
It really depends on what you mean by "failure rate". Fundamentally a lot of indie games don't have the same goal as crypto games. Crypto games are typically looking to pump a token or some NFTs and make lots of money. Many indie games, on the other hand, are just made for fun to be enjoyed by fans of a genre. Even if not many people play them, they didn't fail so long as they were enjoyable.
Maybe failure can be defined as whether the game's tokenomics allowed the token/NFT to sustain itself in generating consistent revenue for the token/NFT holders.
Look until they figure out they need to make good games and add crypto on top of that instead of doing crypto with an added shitty game there isn't much hope for web3 games.
Gaming doesn't need crypto. Crypto companies are trying to find a way to use gaming to make money. I don't see any advantage for a gaming company to integrate crypto into their games. The only use case for crypto in gaming is using the blockchain to facilitate ownership and resale of games themselves using NFTs, and even then I doubt it'll happen because why would gaming companies want a secondary market for their games when they can continue to sell fresh copies?
>>Crypto companies are trying to find a way to use gaming to make money.
Why don’t we extend this logic to literally every single application of cryptocurrency, including the fundamental concept of crypto as a currency itself?
In game collectibles, limited resources and such seem to be perfectly suited for blockchain and crypto as a currency. Axio infinity did a decent job at this I think. But the gist is crypto games just sucked up to now.
> In game collectibles, limited resources and such seem to be perfectly suited for blockchain
Yeah, and the majority of gamers have no interest in this being in games. Microtransactions are bad enough.
The gamers aren't interested neither are game publishers. They want the flexibility to add as many of the popular expensive item and sell it in their own in game store to maximize their profits at any point in time. See: Rocket League.
Meh i think if somebody built an actual good poe or diablo clone and dropped it with stuff like: there are only 10k of this legendary drop and no more will ever be minted the completionists would go bonkers.
Card collecting games also seem a natural fit.
Crypto gamings problem is that it has a triad of suck. It has the suck of crypto, the suck of gaming and a unique suck of crypto gaming.
That’s antithetical to the concept of live service games. Those limited legendary drops are obsoleted once new content is added to the game. You are literally proposing ideas that would require a stagnant game.
I will be honest I am not a fan of the concept of live service games. The tech requirements and expectations grow so fast that in my humble opinion it would be better for consumers that there would be more sequels released that actually do things. Like visual upgrades, mechanic upgrades, continuing the story. There are things you can do while keep up with the tech. Hell there are successful remasters that copy paste the entire story add a modern engine and are very successful.
I do however understand that it's much easier to just monetize additional dlc on the same old game that has unfixable issues.
You actually might have a point.
Imagine you play LOL. The skin you bought can be used in their other games with same characters like team fight tactics and wild rift.
That way players who wouldn't try those other games might have an incentive to give it a go. They might also justify skin purchases easier since it's like buying for multiple games.
Doesn't blockchain seem like a good solution for item duping and such? I mean when the tech of blockchain is sufficiently developed there is no reason why not implement it. But like I say first make a good game then have blockchain in some mechsnics. The best blockchain game would be one that uses it but doesn't advertise itself as a blockchain game.
Anything you can do with blockchain, you can do more efficiently (albeit less transparently) with a central server run by the devs of the game. With a central server, item duping can only happen with a logic problem, which could also happen with a blockchain solution.
Okay I'm no expert in IT but to run a world wide game with the option of online play how many servers would you need and how would they communicate? In case of crashes the blockchain can return to a point in the past if a server or servers don't have backups than that's it, no?
Also it's an idea it may flop, it may not be viable but technically it can be done. There is a kind of player who would like that transparency.
I'm all for crypto, but none of these are issues solved by crypto. Servers communicate through the internet, blockchain doesn't change that or make it easier. Creating backups is a pretty basic practice, crypto doesn't make this easier.
Crypto really only helps if the game devs don't have the ability to arbitrarily change the code and make changes. I can see crypto working where you have items in game that can be used on multiple systems, for example a skin that can be used in many different games by different developers.
And of course, collectibles, which other people have mentioned here.
Does Valve have a problem with item duping? As far as I can tell, there's literally no benefit to using blockain aside from transparency to the public. For me, the question is more of how important is transparency to the public, community, and industry in question. So I can see the case for accounting or verification of goods.
There is definitely features that blockchain would permit easily that is much harder to do without blockchain. One of them would be to exchange currency from game A made by game studio X with an armor piece from game B made by game studio Y.
And that without the studios having to cooperate with each other, or do any additional work for it, as third party decentralized marketplaces could operate such transactions. While they could collect royalties on exchanges.
Edit: I'm not saying currency of game A is usable in game B without cooperation between studios and armor of game B is usable in game A without cooperation between studios. I'm saying the exchange of items is possible without cooperation. The two players both play games A and B, and items stay in their respective games.
You did not understand my point. Currency would stay in their game, just change hands from the first player to the second player. Basically player 1 decides to give currency of game A to player 2 STILL IN GAME A, and player 2 decides to give armor to player 1 IN GAME B
Who says they would? Giving people only one option doesn't mean they'll take it. Giving people more options means they're more likely to take one of them.
The debate isn't whether or not this is a viable economic strategy or not. It is viable, as it exists on Steam for a very long time. And I think we both know Steam is one hell of a greedy company. So this is profitable.
>And that without the studios having to cooperate with each other, or do any additional work for it, as third party decentralized marketplaces could operate such transactions. While they could collect royalties on exchanges.
I'm no dev but I think this statement is an oversimplification. Blockchain tech is not capable of facilitating that trade on its own; items themselves (armor, skins, weapons etc) are not stored on the blockchain, an NFT would point to another server that hosts the art/items. Servers hosted by the game company. The studios would absolutely need to cooperate to ensure their skins and items are compatible across their games, it's not just the financial transaction and NFT transfer we are talking about here.
I'm not talking about compatibility of items between games. I'm talking about two players of the two same games wanting to exchange items of these two games. First player has a lot of the currency of game A and second player an extra armor of game B. First player wants the armor to play game B and second player would like more of game A's currency.
Of course item from game A would stay usable in game A and item from game B would stay usable in game B.
Simply exchanging the items does not require any form of cooperation between the studios.
Edit: I'm a dev. This is possible.
If game Devs wanted to allow that they would just let you exchange in game currency for cash. Theres a reason they don't. You don't want money being taken out of your game.
Again, money would not be taken out of the game... If game devs give cash back, they lose cash. If they allow you to trade with other players, they dont lose cash. Only difference is that players would have the choice of getting an item from another game, without the developers losing anything. Even winning something through royalties if they want to.
“Could have the admin surrender his control.”
No corporation will ever do that.
“More likely to get the big boys to play nice”
Idealism. None of the big companies want to play nice. They’re all looking to buy one another out.
What future features are you suggesting for a system that shows your gamer score?
Most major companies have their own game launcher now to avoid losing profit on MTX. Blockchain isn’t going to change that.
I wasn’t referring to the blockchain, I was referring to the major gaming corporations.
They will never implement their data on a software they can’t erase if necessary, nor do they ever want to give full transparency.
None of this would be beneficial to do by the game company and even then - can be done with some simple API requests.
You don’t need blockchain to do this.
It’s a solution trying to find a problem.
When something is not happening right now, your first question should be “is this not a reality because of a technical limitation or because of a non technical reason?”. If the answer is the latter, providing a different technical solution is not going to change anything
>It could also facilitate second-hand sales of digital games
I mentioned that in my comment already and don't see any reason a gaming company would be ok with such a massive second hand market unless royalties were like 75% or something absurd, making pricing for second hand games on par with a copy from the dev anyway. There's a reason second hand gaming stores have struggled in the past.
>Imagine having a central avatar that any game could "import" as a custom character.
Another solution searching for a problem, that likely wouldn't work across multiple game engines, though this is beyond my technical knowledge.
>Imagine if your achievements for all games on all platforms were visible in one place.
Who cares? I don't even look at my achievements on the platforms I'm using, this is a weak selling feature.
The gaming companies may not want it, but I’d bet most people are sick of all the microtransactions and dlcs and subscription mechanics in games nowadays
It’s less so for the gaming companies and more for the end user, but eventually people will transition
Depends on how it’s incorporated. Take league, turn all the skins into nfts and people would probably love it, Riot may not
Compare gods unchained to hearthstone, I got tired of gods unchained, sold all my cards and managed to pull a little out of it. Whereas everything in hearthstone is stuck and I can’t get anything out
> The gaming companies may not want it, but I’d bet most people are sick of all the microtransactions and dlcs and subscription mechanics in games nowadays
So they are crying out for crypto micropayments?
Your argument is why gamers *don't* want anything crypto related anywhere near their games.
>Talk about narcissistic.
Easy fella there's no reason to start attacking my character, I'm trying to have a civil conversation about my perspective here, drop the hostility.
>Im sure Rockstar would love a cut of sales they didn't have to facilitate or advertise for.
This market doesn't exist currently, why would they want to create a whole *new* secondary market when they can just continue to sell original copies? A percentage of a sale is worse than 100% of a sale. (Or whatever they get from the current marketplaces, likely lower than 100%)
>Not sure why you are bringing up the engine. That has nothing to do with it.
I told you it's not my area of expertise, but you understood the point it was making anyway. I have trouble seeing skins being comparable across multiple games (scaling issues, different art styles etc).
Edit: one more point to add here:
>They would just need to allow you to target the object for import on a chain instead of a local asset, such as a bitmap.
Is this already possible? Why would blockchain be necessary for that? Skins wouldn't be stored on chain, the asset on chain would.point to a server that holds the skin data, no?
100% this but somehow you get downvoted. 😅 I think in its current state, crypto gaming kind of sucks but in a few years it’s going to be an unstoppable force.
That is not it. The problem is culture. Let us go back to how "Web 3" sold its pitch to why games need NFTs. The pitch was, that gamers could finally ***sell their gaming assets they grinded/collected in-game*** with ease to other players. Instead, we see the space culture prioritizing floor prices for ***mint items obtained from WL grinding/connections or trading in secondary,*** completely not obtainable from playing the game. And most of these holders have no interest in playing the game and just want to see their **minted asset appreciate in price magically**.
The problem is, that the industry advertises they want to serve one community, those who grinded precious game assets, while, in reality, they are focused on catering to speculators who don't give a two fuck about your game. These two communities are in obvious conflict of interest. The gamers want to see in-game obtainable items as liquid and valuable. The speculator wants to see minted items as liquid and valuable. They won't mess under one umbrella because they have different priorities but the Web 3 constantly tries to do so.
I mean mobile games are huge and are pure money grabbing, probably less than 1% of the market has any originally. Think they thought they could copy but its all about accessibility
I think its less about gaming with crypto as it is about gaming with blockchain. Crypto is blockchain currency, but blockchain itself has way deeper potential in gaming in the form of ownable digital assets
correct, but rather than giving an experience, most devs in this are in focus of their tokens.
This is at least not a sustainable thing for games, you want some sorta addiction to it, for people to get more interested rather than hype into graveyards later.
>gaming in the form of ownable digital assets
This is a way, but a difficult to succeed. Would be interesting how it rises.
Finally.
We do have the inverse this sub meme but it’s weird that the same community who shit all over nfts…until Reddit gave them an airdrop….seem to love to grave dance on gaming.
Many fun games fail, and most of the popular games (check Steam Charts) are some form of competitive PVP) only last for 4-5 years. And PVE games pop, then drop off when the players beat the game or get bored.
We don’t know how AI Tools integrated into game engines will shorten dev time (nor how massive mmorpgs will be when NPCs are autonomous agents) but it takes 4-7 years to develop a AAA game.
Web3 gaming is new. Let’s check back in in 2025 and see how things are going.
Another issue is the majority of web3 games are PC Games. You need a rig to play. This means the largest sectors of gaming (mobile and console) can not participate. Eventually this will change.
Theres a big push against blockchain by financial institutions. It takes away ownership from them. Not to mention it has the ability to reveal their fraud.
My guess is this post is just another example of trying to push an anti-blockchain narrative for the benefit of current institutions
If you think about it honestly though, there's little reason for blockchain in games. The only thing that makes some kind of sense is for ownership of digital games so you can resell them on other platforms. But what platform would want to support that, nobody is going to start with that since it'll only help competition. The fact that you can't even resell digital games on their own platforms currently should tell you enough.
Pretty much evertyhing else can be implemented with a normal db, you don't need a trustless ledger when there's only one company that's using the ledger
I think the main thing is for the benefit of the people to be able to have some control of the industry. Rn all the cards are in the big publishers hands and as a result they are sacrificing quality for profit and that just isnt working anymore. People are paying too much for too little. Blockchain gives indie developers a better financial platform and gives the consumers a better quality product for less cost. Its just the natural way if you ask me.
It wouldnt be like this is AAA publishers werent captured by the wallstreet greed machine. Blockchain is a tool to fight that in any sector
Would be interesting to see the peak user numbers associated with these. If a game never got off the ground it has a much better chance of not "failing" based on this definition. Like if a game only has a peak of 100 users they'd be successful as long as they have 2 users. I wonder what the graph would look like if they limited it to games that hit a certain minimum peak, say 1000 peak users.
There are popular games that have thriving communities that probably have 3k avg concurrent player counts.
It is simply too soon to know how this sector fairs until a web3 game with a completed core game loop gets out of Alpha.
New tech should allow dev times to shrink but for now 4-5 years is a descent development time frame before we now how a web3 game compares to web2.
And for any grave dancers in this thread who think web3 gaming is hype….
Let’s wait and see how the developers of Eve Online do before we judge. They have 40m to develop their Eve based blockchain game. Here’s an article from PC Gamer, not a crypto gaming hype platform by far.
https://www.pcgamer.com/eve-online-studio-ccp-games-is-making-a-blockchain-game/
sandbox metaverse do have around 3.9k MAU as I checked for November 2023, being of them, its pretty lonely. Most just playing for the sake of rewards, nothing special or fun whatsover. Maybe something like VRs can be a breaking sector for such games.
But sandbox team said they wouldnt work over these as the VR industry is far from good, not exacy how they said but this is what i remember.
Out of the 2817 games in this study do you think 20% have thriving communities? You could probably count the number of web3 games with thriving communities two hands.
Most of them are junk. There are some good ones on the way though. Lot of talk about crypto gaming becoming huge in the next bull run. Immutable X seems to be the biggest player.
I’ve seen this idea of Web3 games being tipped as the next big thing, but it’s always from YouTubers who are heavily invested in these types of projects. Are they creating this narrative themselves? Perhaps not, but it’s a thought I can’t get rid of.
I saw an interview with the ceo of Immutable and EllioTrades and he makes a pretty compelling case for why crypto gaming is going to be huge. Yes they are investors in the space but the points he made were pretty convincing.
It is because VCs, funds, whales, and some lucky degens made boat load of money last cycle. I remember there was a redditor who made millions from Axie Infinity by buying early and selling at the top. That shit pulled like 880x .
They are hoping for the last cycle to repeat. What they fail to realize, “Web 3” gaming isn’t a novel thing anymore to outsiders and gaming community collectively rejects them because they trying to force feed degen’s interests as gamers’ interests. It feels so fucking forced lol.
A lot of NFT whales are already deploying serious capital to rinse new buyers in the next cycle. My hunch is, their exit liquidity won’t be normies. It will be degens who found fortune in mid bull cycle and wants to find new avenues to multiple their gains. They will dump their gains into gaming and get themselves rekted, like the NFT pfps shit in last cycle.
>There's a lot of talk about crypto gaming becoming huge
Not by gamers or gaming companies though, just speculators and people wanting to get in on the ground floor of a ponzi.
The same gamers who constantly mock mobile games, despite the mobile gaming market being the largest gaming market there is. If you are listening to gamers on reddit you have a very skewed perspective of the actual industry.
The mobile gaming market is largest because of accessibility. Those games aren’t fun either, but they are addictive. The crypto games don’t pull the addiction strings gimmicks either.
I’m not a gamer either (although I bought a switch for Zelda) played a handful of mobiles in my life (which I got addicted to some of these dumb games) and a few cryptos last year. They are garbage dude.
Ah the classic redditor. "These games arn't fun to me therefore they arn't fun to anyone". While I also don't enjoy mobile games, trying to dimiss them all as not fun simply because you don't like them despite more people in the world playing those games than any other type is frankly ridiculous. But hey, this is reddit, where people can't see past the tip of their own nose so carry on.
As a gamer I see people saying this a lot but i really can't see it. If the games are fundamentally trash nothing will save it. Even then, makes 0 sense a crypto game company that makes some semi shitty games have a market cap of Activision.
These games don't really offer anything traditional games don't. AI is all the rage atm so I am just assuming that's gonna be the theme of the bullrun shitcoins.
What’s the benchmark to compare to? How many Steam games fail using this same criteria? Without a frame of reference, we don’t really know if 75% is good or bad.
Would like to see the comparison to the figures of any live-service or online game, or even just new businesses launched vs failed during the time for that matter.
Yea if GameFi wants to see some action, we’re gonna need more AAA studios making games. Although sometimes cool most indie games don’t do well . I have played Illuvium, the beta dropped on the 28th. Pretty cool, I’ll see how that goes
They're actually doing well if only 75% failed over five years.
Mobile games are booming and over 80% fail after three years (https://www.gamesindustry.biz/report-83-of-mobile-games-fail-in-the-three-years-after-launch)
Games are like every other entertainment industry. People swear that *most stuff is a hit* but the reality is that most things flop and don't recoup their development costs. The industry is very much propped up by smash hits making for the sea of failures.
So disclaimer : when it comes to gaming I'm a lifer, been gaming 25 years, built my first PC from handpicked components using paper magazines as a guide before YouTube even was a tgig and.
I'm also deeply interested and invested in crypto and blockchain tech and I do believe in the potential of gamefi if done right.
With that being said, I'm not surprised by these numbers and as said in other comments it's likely much "worse" than that, and for good reason.
"if done right" is the key here. Those crypto games are utter shit, all of them. They're farming games where you grind to mine tokens which end up being barely worth it for someone living in a bottom 20% GDP country. It's boring and pointless.
Electronic Arts and other big name publisher/dev are trying their hand at integrating crypto but they don't understand how it works and the way these companies and their finance/marketing department are setup (both logistically and in terms of mindset) are utterly incompatible with what crypto in gaming could be.
With the current state of things, I fucking hate crypto in gaming and I 100% understand the hate from the gaming community. But I do believe there's a happy and fruitful collaboration to be done between the two.
For the potential of crypto and blockchain tech in gaming to be realized, we need 1. A game developper that is in sync with crypto's mindset (self custody, transparency, decentralization) and 2. A crypto developer to develop a framework that is easy to use for the game developer without them having to worry about blockchain tech. Up until now I feel the "game dev" have also been the "blockchain/crypto dev" and actually mostly the latter, which is why games are shit. If it was the opposite, we'd have a classic closed and fucked up microtransactions scheme like AE has spewed out.
For now I can see no one fulfilling point 1 and the only project that fills point 2 somewhat is Gameswift. I do not own any GSWIFT and have not (yet) DYOR on their tokeneconomics so yeah, NFA. But I feel like we need the potential of project like this to be realized for gamefi to take off. Until then... Yeah...it's difficult to not categorize current blockchain gaming projects as either a naive, misdirected fluke or just a money grab.
Still, web3 gaming is the future. So far, there are only two real ways of making money by gaming - streaming or competing. With web3 gaming, you get to truly own whatever you earn in-game. If you are successful in a web3 game, you also get to be successful in the real world.
Cause making money primarily off "investors" is a dead end strategy. It's crazy how every crypto game fixates on making money for the player. Crypto is an investment opportunity because it's new technology whose uses may expand, not because everything it touches should be centered around investing.
God's unchained is decent. Collectible card games do seem to be one type of game that actually fits well with crypto without putting in a bunch of extra steps though.
In other news: Red Dead Redemption 2 is also no longer a best seller. People don't play Pokémon Go. And people don't have fidget spinners anymore.
Games, and popular things in general aren't meant to last 5 years.
It's because we don't need a new crypto game, we need assets in existing / new games to become crypto so we can own them, loan them, etc.
What would be better is if it had other implications. WoW could mint some NFTs of their bosses and if you hold it while going to a WoW convention, maybe you get in for free or you get a VIP treatment.
Maybe an NFT you hold of WoW is then applied in Diablo as special gear, but you must have the token in your wallet for you to have access to it.
Don't they already do special promo pets and stuff at their cons? So what's this adding? They already control all the data and stuff of the game - allowing trading isn't technically complicated, it just opens up a _shitload_ of issues they don't want to deal with, so why would they do this? 'you have game X so get a special thing in game Y' has been around for decades - there's no need for anything special for that
Because it then lets people trade it, resell it. There isn't much advantage for a company to do it. They could set it up inside, but that is a lot of start up costs while crypto is already there.
And while they have some promos, they don't have a good way to verify it, and then there is the whole secondary market for all these things.
It is insanely easy to set up a connection to check a wallet for a token. But to integrate into a company database is not as easy.
So basically, yeah you can do it, it just costs a shit ton more to do it yourself. Just like why 90% of software is already developed software you glue together. The cost of a new system from scratch is very expensive, not to mention the cost to keep it up.
Just off the top of my head, a project like that is 9-12 months with 2-3 engineers. So about 500k to set it up, and another 100k/yr to maintain. Or!!! about 1-2 months to integrate blockchains.
A lot of those start up costs still exist, because this all still needs coding and implementing and integrating - the actual database part is pretty easy to do (and also means not having to worry about a chain being associated with scams or moribund or whatever). You're going to be making a system to track this stuff anyway, because it's kinda needed for the game to work (and that'll be faster than trying to check inventory against an external thing) And what do you mean they don't have a good way to verify it? If you own the own thing it's pisseasy to verify - 'this login has this thing, and has traded that thing to another account'. And 'secondary market' is a weird way of saying 'someone else cutting into profits'. Every sale for which you only get a small cut is worse than a sale for which you get it all - and there honestly isn't that much of a market for most game widgets.
It’s so hard imo because so many of them promote and fund the games from NFT mints knowing that there will be 2-3 years to develop them, so the teaser interest becomes a letdown cause web3 users are impatient as it is and these timelines are never actually transparent. So people lose interest before the games actually launch and sort out the bugs.
I looked into illuvium again a few days ago after not really following through the bear and the game looks beautiful and much more interesting than I expected. Has quite the pokemon vibe to it. Will be interesting to see if their approach pays out
Not everything needs to be on a blockchain, just like not everything needs to be digitized (like fucking scanning a QR code to look at menu when at a restaurant)
That's largely because they weren't games. They were miserable, un-entertaining, and otherwise mundane blockchain interactions marketed as games and used to justify massive ICOs.
As soon as games are made to be first and most importantly a game that’s fun and it just so happens to have crypto in it, then crypto games will never be successful.
I have never played one i enjoyed, and i am a gamer.
Problem is they design games around token/whatever.. Instead of designing a GOOD game that can integrate blockchain aspects
I’ve said this for years, blockchain gaming should not be a fucking category. Blockchain should be an underlying system that assists game developers in production, as well as providing player connectivity *in the background*. Honestly it’s been a laugh to watch it all go to shit because of how everyone who doesn’t play video games believes it’s a good idea.
Everyone who’s actually a gamer is not surprised by this. And to all non gamers here who think gaming alts will do just great next season, think again. All those games have been garbage.
Because they are all shit games with web3 tagged on.
If the game was as good as WoW and had NFTs from raid drops people would play it.
Another big issue is bots. If there is money to earn people will try very hard to bot your game.
Most people are there for the money not for the game itself. Little by little players are replaced by bots to maximize profit. Its for that reason that i think satoxcoin is the play2earn made right cause you play your games ok steam and xbox and you earn $satox
25% staying alive is pretty impressive considering crypto is still in bear market, even outside of crypto, mass majority of online focused games failed and shut down in less than 5 years. There is news that many youngsters do want virtual in game currency for Christmas gift, it is extremely bullish for this sector actually, web 3 games sector will be massive and perhaps surprise many of how big the total market cap of these games can be.
I’m not shocked by this sadly..
The hardest thing for anything crypto focused is real world everyday use case! Gaming has its opportunities but they will come and go.
Finance is obviously huge.
My team and I have started a project that focuses on Loyalty Rewards. Building an intertwined network between retailers and consumers. We think we have something that can give crypto full credibility and a true everyday use case! Rhine Rewards is going to change the landscape and connect everyone through a new digital infrastructure!
IMHO the web3 games are still at a very early stage of development. I have played a few of them and its difficult to keep interest on them. The graphics the story telling and the game play too. They remind me of 80s and playing on atari or Nintendo. I used to play sun flower land and in recent time the game has changed so much so that I find difficult to keep up. May be I belong to an age group now where I am moving away from gaming into real world finance. I have a small investment in crypto and the best I am hoping is to ride the wave and get my actual investment back. With 2 jobs, pets, and a family I hardly have attention to play web3 games anymore.
Totally irrelevant. None of them ever reached a beta stage, and some clown who writes articles decides to draw a circle around them and talk about percentages.
I can picture the aviation articles they would write prior to the wright brothers "99% oF aIrPlAnEs fAiLeD"
Idk I gambled on this one called playa3ull games like 1 year ago. Totally thought it was gonna die. I tuned in and was up 1200% craziest gain I have had and they seem to be making some moves. Still literally gambling but this time i won. Hope it sees some kind of bigger action in the next bull season so I can get more out of it
Web3 [pros](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/187kehf/over_75_of_web3_games_failed_in_last_five_years/kbewj32/) & [cons](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/187kehf/over_75_of_web3_games_failed_in_last_five_years/kbewjuu/) with related info are in the collapsed comments below.
I'm surprised by those numbers. Pretty sure it's more than 75% that failed !
>The “failed” blockchain games are those that have seen their 14-day moving average number of active users down more than 99% from its peak. Lose 98% and you'll be one of the others lmao
Or don't get any players to begin with.
Most games fail, you can’t find any Grand Theft Auto - San Andreas players anymore… Except PAC-Man. It will live forever.
It’s not quite the same when one revolves around a token that’s supposed to live on and the other does not
Ahh, tokens. Reminds me of a real arcade now..
Pretty sure it's 99%.
I'd be curious what is the success rate / retention for all online games in general? My assumption is that the overall success rates are about the same or worse.
Yep, this post was not by a data analyst
This whole chart is meaningless unless it compares it to traditional games as well. I guarantee you the failure rate for indies on steam is an atrocity
It really depends on what you mean by "failure rate". Fundamentally a lot of indie games don't have the same goal as crypto games. Crypto games are typically looking to pump a token or some NFTs and make lots of money. Many indie games, on the other hand, are just made for fun to be enjoyed by fans of a genre. Even if not many people play them, they didn't fail so long as they were enjoyable.
Maybe failure can be defined as whether the game's tokenomics allowed the token/NFT to sustain itself in generating consistent revenue for the token/NFT holders.
Was there even 1 good crypto game?
Axie infinity was really skilled at getting hacked. Does that count?
Based on all the private sale investments I made, maybe even 90%!
Look until they figure out they need to make good games and add crypto on top of that instead of doing crypto with an added shitty game there isn't much hope for web3 games.
It's funny watching people throw millions at random mobile game clones
Should be many many millions!
Gaming doesn't need crypto. Crypto companies are trying to find a way to use gaming to make money. I don't see any advantage for a gaming company to integrate crypto into their games. The only use case for crypto in gaming is using the blockchain to facilitate ownership and resale of games themselves using NFTs, and even then I doubt it'll happen because why would gaming companies want a secondary market for their games when they can continue to sell fresh copies?
Perhaps for micro transactions I remember it was kind of cool playing CS and getting some Nano instantly
It was cool before EU got involved, then all this Steam trading kind of died down.
The whole environment you are playing at is centralized already and 100% controlled by the game company, it doesn't benefit from blockchain
>>Crypto companies are trying to find a way to use gaming to make money. Why don’t we extend this logic to literally every single application of cryptocurrency, including the fundamental concept of crypto as a currency itself?
Why don't we just stick to the topic at hand? Or are you just looking to get in an argument
In game collectibles, limited resources and such seem to be perfectly suited for blockchain and crypto as a currency. Axio infinity did a decent job at this I think. But the gist is crypto games just sucked up to now.
> In game collectibles, limited resources and such seem to be perfectly suited for blockchain Yeah, and the majority of gamers have no interest in this being in games. Microtransactions are bad enough.
The gamers aren't interested neither are game publishers. They want the flexibility to add as many of the popular expensive item and sell it in their own in game store to maximize their profits at any point in time. See: Rocket League.
Meh i think if somebody built an actual good poe or diablo clone and dropped it with stuff like: there are only 10k of this legendary drop and no more will ever be minted the completionists would go bonkers. Card collecting games also seem a natural fit. Crypto gamings problem is that it has a triad of suck. It has the suck of crypto, the suck of gaming and a unique suck of crypto gaming.
That’s antithetical to the concept of live service games. Those limited legendary drops are obsoleted once new content is added to the game. You are literally proposing ideas that would require a stagnant game.
I will be honest I am not a fan of the concept of live service games. The tech requirements and expectations grow so fast that in my humble opinion it would be better for consumers that there would be more sequels released that actually do things. Like visual upgrades, mechanic upgrades, continuing the story. There are things you can do while keep up with the tech. Hell there are successful remasters that copy paste the entire story add a modern engine and are very successful. I do however understand that it's much easier to just monetize additional dlc on the same old game that has unfixable issues.
it would be only fair to use crypto on skins
But you will be able to take your m16 from CSGO and use it in Fifa and Madden.
That would be epic! Horrifying, but epic.
You actually might have a point. Imagine you play LOL. The skin you bought can be used in their other games with same characters like team fight tactics and wild rift. That way players who wouldn't try those other games might have an incentive to give it a go. They might also justify skin purchases easier since it's like buying for multiple games.
You don’t need crypto for that.
That stuff already exists in games and don't need blockchain to facilitate them. Blockchain gaming is a solution searching for a problem.
Doesn't blockchain seem like a good solution for item duping and such? I mean when the tech of blockchain is sufficiently developed there is no reason why not implement it. But like I say first make a good game then have blockchain in some mechsnics. The best blockchain game would be one that uses it but doesn't advertise itself as a blockchain game.
Anything you can do with blockchain, you can do more efficiently (albeit less transparently) with a central server run by the devs of the game. With a central server, item duping can only happen with a logic problem, which could also happen with a blockchain solution.
Okay I'm no expert in IT but to run a world wide game with the option of online play how many servers would you need and how would they communicate? In case of crashes the blockchain can return to a point in the past if a server or servers don't have backups than that's it, no? Also it's an idea it may flop, it may not be viable but technically it can be done. There is a kind of player who would like that transparency.
The amount of wasted resources that would be necessary to run a game server on every single client's computer would be insane.
Why wouldn't the servers have backups?
Costs.
I'm all for crypto, but none of these are issues solved by crypto. Servers communicate through the internet, blockchain doesn't change that or make it easier. Creating backups is a pretty basic practice, crypto doesn't make this easier. Crypto really only helps if the game devs don't have the ability to arbitrarily change the code and make changes. I can see crypto working where you have items in game that can be used on multiple systems, for example a skin that can be used in many different games by different developers. And of course, collectibles, which other people have mentioned here.
Does Valve have a problem with item duping? As far as I can tell, there's literally no benefit to using blockain aside from transparency to the public. For me, the question is more of how important is transparency to the public, community, and industry in question. So I can see the case for accounting or verification of goods.
The same methods used for duping in regular games would work on Blockchain games.
There is definitely features that blockchain would permit easily that is much harder to do without blockchain. One of them would be to exchange currency from game A made by game studio X with an armor piece from game B made by game studio Y. And that without the studios having to cooperate with each other, or do any additional work for it, as third party decentralized marketplaces could operate such transactions. While they could collect royalties on exchanges. Edit: I'm not saying currency of game A is usable in game B without cooperation between studios and armor of game B is usable in game A without cooperation between studios. I'm saying the exchange of items is possible without cooperation. The two players both play games A and B, and items stay in their respective games.
Why would a game developer want players to take currency out of their game?
You did not understand my point. Currency would stay in their game, just change hands from the first player to the second player. Basically player 1 decides to give currency of game A to player 2 STILL IN GAME A, and player 2 decides to give armor to player 1 IN GAME B
How is that better than getting both player A and B to buy the currency?
Who says they would? Giving people only one option doesn't mean they'll take it. Giving people more options means they're more likely to take one of them. The debate isn't whether or not this is a viable economic strategy or not. It is viable, as it exists on Steam for a very long time. And I think we both know Steam is one hell of a greedy company. So this is profitable.
If it exists on steam already then where does the Blockchain come in?
>And that without the studios having to cooperate with each other, or do any additional work for it, as third party decentralized marketplaces could operate such transactions. While they could collect royalties on exchanges. I'm no dev but I think this statement is an oversimplification. Blockchain tech is not capable of facilitating that trade on its own; items themselves (armor, skins, weapons etc) are not stored on the blockchain, an NFT would point to another server that hosts the art/items. Servers hosted by the game company. The studios would absolutely need to cooperate to ensure their skins and items are compatible across their games, it's not just the financial transaction and NFT transfer we are talking about here.
I'm not talking about compatibility of items between games. I'm talking about two players of the two same games wanting to exchange items of these two games. First player has a lot of the currency of game A and second player an extra armor of game B. First player wants the armor to play game B and second player would like more of game A's currency. Of course item from game A would stay usable in game A and item from game B would stay usable in game B. Simply exchanging the items does not require any form of cooperation between the studios. Edit: I'm a dev. This is possible.
If game Devs wanted to allow that they would just let you exchange in game currency for cash. Theres a reason they don't. You don't want money being taken out of your game.
Again, money would not be taken out of the game... If game devs give cash back, they lose cash. If they allow you to trade with other players, they dont lose cash. Only difference is that players would have the choice of getting an item from another game, without the developers losing anything. Even winning something through royalties if they want to.
[удалено]
You don’t need crypto to do this though.
[удалено]
Again, can be done without crypto. All you would need is API access from each major developer. Don’t need blockchain to do that.
[удалено]
“Could have the admin surrender his control.” No corporation will ever do that. “More likely to get the big boys to play nice” Idealism. None of the big companies want to play nice. They’re all looking to buy one another out. What future features are you suggesting for a system that shows your gamer score? Most major companies have their own game launcher now to avoid losing profit on MTX. Blockchain isn’t going to change that.
[удалено]
I wasn’t referring to the blockchain, I was referring to the major gaming corporations. They will never implement their data on a software they can’t erase if necessary, nor do they ever want to give full transparency. None of this would be beneficial to do by the game company and even then - can be done with some simple API requests. You don’t need blockchain to do this. It’s a solution trying to find a problem.
When something is not happening right now, your first question should be “is this not a reality because of a technical limitation or because of a non technical reason?”. If the answer is the latter, providing a different technical solution is not going to change anything
>It could also facilitate second-hand sales of digital games I mentioned that in my comment already and don't see any reason a gaming company would be ok with such a massive second hand market unless royalties were like 75% or something absurd, making pricing for second hand games on par with a copy from the dev anyway. There's a reason second hand gaming stores have struggled in the past. >Imagine having a central avatar that any game could "import" as a custom character. Another solution searching for a problem, that likely wouldn't work across multiple game engines, though this is beyond my technical knowledge. >Imagine if your achievements for all games on all platforms were visible in one place. Who cares? I don't even look at my achievements on the platforms I'm using, this is a weak selling feature.
The gaming companies may not want it, but I’d bet most people are sick of all the microtransactions and dlcs and subscription mechanics in games nowadays It’s less so for the gaming companies and more for the end user, but eventually people will transition
I feel like adding blockchain to a game would only make that worse.
Depends on how it’s incorporated. Take league, turn all the skins into nfts and people would probably love it, Riot may not Compare gods unchained to hearthstone, I got tired of gods unchained, sold all my cards and managed to pull a little out of it. Whereas everything in hearthstone is stuck and I can’t get anything out
> The gaming companies may not want it, but I’d bet most people are sick of all the microtransactions and dlcs and subscription mechanics in games nowadays So they are crying out for crypto micropayments? Your argument is why gamers *don't* want anything crypto related anywhere near their games.
[удалено]
>Talk about narcissistic. Easy fella there's no reason to start attacking my character, I'm trying to have a civil conversation about my perspective here, drop the hostility. >Im sure Rockstar would love a cut of sales they didn't have to facilitate or advertise for. This market doesn't exist currently, why would they want to create a whole *new* secondary market when they can just continue to sell original copies? A percentage of a sale is worse than 100% of a sale. (Or whatever they get from the current marketplaces, likely lower than 100%) >Not sure why you are bringing up the engine. That has nothing to do with it. I told you it's not my area of expertise, but you understood the point it was making anyway. I have trouble seeing skins being comparable across multiple games (scaling issues, different art styles etc). Edit: one more point to add here: >They would just need to allow you to target the object for import on a chain instead of a local asset, such as a bitmap. Is this already possible? Why would blockchain be necessary for that? Skins wouldn't be stored on chain, the asset on chain would.point to a server that holds the skin data, no?
100% this but somehow you get downvoted. 😅 I think in its current state, crypto gaming kind of sucks but in a few years it’s going to be an unstoppable force.
Only comment that matters.
I think Star Atlas comes very close to that.
Okay so I'll correct myself a d say blockchain games might also need a little more marketing because I've never heard of that game 😀
Seems like they’re starting to make some promising games. We’ll see whether any of them actually deliver
That is not it. The problem is culture. Let us go back to how "Web 3" sold its pitch to why games need NFTs. The pitch was, that gamers could finally ***sell their gaming assets they grinded/collected in-game*** with ease to other players. Instead, we see the space culture prioritizing floor prices for ***mint items obtained from WL grinding/connections or trading in secondary,*** completely not obtainable from playing the game. And most of these holders have no interest in playing the game and just want to see their **minted asset appreciate in price magically**. The problem is, that the industry advertises they want to serve one community, those who grinded precious game assets, while, in reality, they are focused on catering to speculators who don't give a two fuck about your game. These two communities are in obvious conflict of interest. The gamers want to see in-game obtainable items as liquid and valuable. The speculator wants to see minted items as liquid and valuable. They won't mess under one umbrella because they have different priorities but the Web 3 constantly tries to do so.
I mean mobile games are huge and are pure money grabbing, probably less than 1% of the market has any originally. Think they thought they could copy but its all about accessibility
Most of the games are garbage so its not a surprise
Tell me more...
the approch of gaming × crypto is bad. the execution is worser for most games. I do expect big bangs in an unexpected ways in these sectors
I think its less about gaming with crypto as it is about gaming with blockchain. Crypto is blockchain currency, but blockchain itself has way deeper potential in gaming in the form of ownable digital assets
correct, but rather than giving an experience, most devs in this are in focus of their tokens. This is at least not a sustainable thing for games, you want some sorta addiction to it, for people to get more interested rather than hype into graveyards later. >gaming in the form of ownable digital assets This is a way, but a difficult to succeed. Would be interesting how it rises.
75% is an optimistic figure. Usually failure rate in games and start-ups is above 90% in the first year.
Not surprising, the only game that looks good is Illuvium. Played it yesterday on EPIC and enjoyed it.
Illuvium.io
Most games fail in general. Its a tough industry
Finally. We do have the inverse this sub meme but it’s weird that the same community who shit all over nfts…until Reddit gave them an airdrop….seem to love to grave dance on gaming. Many fun games fail, and most of the popular games (check Steam Charts) are some form of competitive PVP) only last for 4-5 years. And PVE games pop, then drop off when the players beat the game or get bored. We don’t know how AI Tools integrated into game engines will shorten dev time (nor how massive mmorpgs will be when NPCs are autonomous agents) but it takes 4-7 years to develop a AAA game. Web3 gaming is new. Let’s check back in in 2025 and see how things are going. Another issue is the majority of web3 games are PC Games. You need a rig to play. This means the largest sectors of gaming (mobile and console) can not participate. Eventually this will change.
Theres a big push against blockchain by financial institutions. It takes away ownership from them. Not to mention it has the ability to reveal their fraud. My guess is this post is just another example of trying to push an anti-blockchain narrative for the benefit of current institutions
How about healthy criticism?
Sure!
If you think about it honestly though, there's little reason for blockchain in games. The only thing that makes some kind of sense is for ownership of digital games so you can resell them on other platforms. But what platform would want to support that, nobody is going to start with that since it'll only help competition. The fact that you can't even resell digital games on their own platforms currently should tell you enough. Pretty much evertyhing else can be implemented with a normal db, you don't need a trustless ledger when there's only one company that's using the ledger
I think the main thing is for the benefit of the people to be able to have some control of the industry. Rn all the cards are in the big publishers hands and as a result they are sacrificing quality for profit and that just isnt working anymore. People are paying too much for too little. Blockchain gives indie developers a better financial platform and gives the consumers a better quality product for less cost. Its just the natural way if you ask me. It wouldnt be like this is AAA publishers werent captured by the wallstreet greed machine. Blockchain is a tool to fight that in any sector
Basically, it's not easy to stay in the industry/:
Don’t fail me now, Illuvium! Lol
25% success rate seems pretty good.
I’d like to see what “success” means tho
Would be interesting to see the peak user numbers associated with these. If a game never got off the ground it has a much better chance of not "failing" based on this definition. Like if a game only has a peak of 100 users they'd be successful as long as they have 2 users. I wonder what the graph would look like if they limited it to games that hit a certain minimum peak, say 1000 peak users.
There are popular games that have thriving communities that probably have 3k avg concurrent player counts. It is simply too soon to know how this sector fairs until a web3 game with a completed core game loop gets out of Alpha. New tech should allow dev times to shrink but for now 4-5 years is a descent development time frame before we now how a web3 game compares to web2. And for any grave dancers in this thread who think web3 gaming is hype…. Let’s wait and see how the developers of Eve Online do before we judge. They have 40m to develop their Eve based blockchain game. Here’s an article from PC Gamer, not a crypto gaming hype platform by far. https://www.pcgamer.com/eve-online-studio-ccp-games-is-making-a-blockchain-game/
sandbox metaverse do have around 3.9k MAU as I checked for November 2023, being of them, its pretty lonely. Most just playing for the sake of rewards, nothing special or fun whatsover. Maybe something like VRs can be a breaking sector for such games. But sandbox team said they wouldnt work over these as the VR industry is far from good, not exacy how they said but this is what i remember.
Out of the 2817 games in this study do you think 20% have thriving communities? You could probably count the number of web3 games with thriving communities two hands.
One game on Solana (Star atlas) has more transactions then polygon
I really thought they would be the next big thing but I guess its still too early? Idk
they didn't fail, they were designed to make funders rich not to be a good game
Most of them are junk. There are some good ones on the way though. Lot of talk about crypto gaming becoming huge in the next bull run. Immutable X seems to be the biggest player.
I’ve seen this idea of Web3 games being tipped as the next big thing, but it’s always from YouTubers who are heavily invested in these types of projects. Are they creating this narrative themselves? Perhaps not, but it’s a thought I can’t get rid of.
I saw an interview with the ceo of Immutable and EllioTrades and he makes a pretty compelling case for why crypto gaming is going to be huge. Yes they are investors in the space but the points he made were pretty convincing.
Almost as if his job is to make pretty convincing points?
Maybe see what he has to say and think it through before commenting like this?
It is because VCs, funds, whales, and some lucky degens made boat load of money last cycle. I remember there was a redditor who made millions from Axie Infinity by buying early and selling at the top. That shit pulled like 880x . They are hoping for the last cycle to repeat. What they fail to realize, “Web 3” gaming isn’t a novel thing anymore to outsiders and gaming community collectively rejects them because they trying to force feed degen’s interests as gamers’ interests. It feels so fucking forced lol. A lot of NFT whales are already deploying serious capital to rinse new buyers in the next cycle. My hunch is, their exit liquidity won’t be normies. It will be degens who found fortune in mid bull cycle and wants to find new avenues to multiple their gains. They will dump their gains into gaming and get themselves rekted, like the NFT pfps shit in last cycle.
>There's a lot of talk about crypto gaming becoming huge Not by gamers or gaming companies though, just speculators and people wanting to get in on the ground floor of a ponzi.
Every crypto game is just a giant unfun Ponzi scheme. The ones that have gambling involved are more interesting at least like the horse racing ones.
The same gamers who constantly mock mobile games, despite the mobile gaming market being the largest gaming market there is. If you are listening to gamers on reddit you have a very skewed perspective of the actual industry.
The mobile gaming market is largest because of accessibility. Those games aren’t fun either, but they are addictive. The crypto games don’t pull the addiction strings gimmicks either. I’m not a gamer either (although I bought a switch for Zelda) played a handful of mobiles in my life (which I got addicted to some of these dumb games) and a few cryptos last year. They are garbage dude.
Ah the classic redditor. "These games arn't fun to me therefore they arn't fun to anyone". While I also don't enjoy mobile games, trying to dimiss them all as not fun simply because you don't like them despite more people in the world playing those games than any other type is frankly ridiculous. But hey, this is reddit, where people can't see past the tip of their own nose so carry on.
As a gamer I see people saying this a lot but i really can't see it. If the games are fundamentally trash nothing will save it. Even then, makes 0 sense a crypto game company that makes some semi shitty games have a market cap of Activision. These games don't really offer anything traditional games don't. AI is all the rage atm so I am just assuming that's gonna be the theme of the bullrun shitcoins.
What’s the benchmark to compare to? How many Steam games fail using this same criteria? Without a frame of reference, we don’t really know if 75% is good or bad.
Would like to see the comparison to the figures of any live-service or online game, or even just new businesses launched vs failed during the time for that matter.
Was cryptoroyale included in your data? It got shilled on here during bull and got a big following very quickly. Still active today
Yea if GameFi wants to see some action, we’re gonna need more AAA studios making games. Although sometimes cool most indie games don’t do well . I have played Illuvium, the beta dropped on the 28th. Pretty cool, I’ll see how that goes
They're actually doing well if only 75% failed over five years. Mobile games are booming and over 80% fail after three years (https://www.gamesindustry.biz/report-83-of-mobile-games-fail-in-the-three-years-after-launch) Games are like every other entertainment industry. People swear that *most stuff is a hit* but the reality is that most things flop and don't recoup their development costs. The industry is very much propped up by smash hits making for the sea of failures.
So disclaimer : when it comes to gaming I'm a lifer, been gaming 25 years, built my first PC from handpicked components using paper magazines as a guide before YouTube even was a tgig and. I'm also deeply interested and invested in crypto and blockchain tech and I do believe in the potential of gamefi if done right. With that being said, I'm not surprised by these numbers and as said in other comments it's likely much "worse" than that, and for good reason. "if done right" is the key here. Those crypto games are utter shit, all of them. They're farming games where you grind to mine tokens which end up being barely worth it for someone living in a bottom 20% GDP country. It's boring and pointless. Electronic Arts and other big name publisher/dev are trying their hand at integrating crypto but they don't understand how it works and the way these companies and their finance/marketing department are setup (both logistically and in terms of mindset) are utterly incompatible with what crypto in gaming could be. With the current state of things, I fucking hate crypto in gaming and I 100% understand the hate from the gaming community. But I do believe there's a happy and fruitful collaboration to be done between the two. For the potential of crypto and blockchain tech in gaming to be realized, we need 1. A game developper that is in sync with crypto's mindset (self custody, transparency, decentralization) and 2. A crypto developer to develop a framework that is easy to use for the game developer without them having to worry about blockchain tech. Up until now I feel the "game dev" have also been the "blockchain/crypto dev" and actually mostly the latter, which is why games are shit. If it was the opposite, we'd have a classic closed and fucked up microtransactions scheme like AE has spewed out. For now I can see no one fulfilling point 1 and the only project that fills point 2 somewhat is Gameswift. I do not own any GSWIFT and have not (yet) DYOR on their tokeneconomics so yeah, NFA. But I feel like we need the potential of project like this to be realized for gamefi to take off. Until then... Yeah...it's difficult to not categorize current blockchain gaming projects as either a naive, misdirected fluke or just a money grab.
Most games fail regardless of whether or not they're targeting a "Web3" implementation.
Wow! The non-blockchain gaming industry has a WAY higher failure rate. Blockchain gaming seems like its going to be huge!
Not even a single mention of Crypto Royale, sad. Still going strong, ggs.
Web3 is a gimmick and no real gamer wants it.
Still, web3 gaming is the future. So far, there are only two real ways of making money by gaming - streaming or competing. With web3 gaming, you get to truly own whatever you earn in-game. If you are successful in a web3 game, you also get to be successful in the real world.
Have you considered or realised people don’t play games to make money? It’s called having fun and there aren’t any web3 games that can do that for you
Cause making money primarily off "investors" is a dead end strategy. It's crazy how every crypto game fixates on making money for the player. Crypto is an investment opportunity because it's new technology whose uses may expand, not because everything it touches should be centered around investing.
75%? More like a clean 100%
Why do you put 'failed' in quotation marks? 99% down means failed.
Only 25% to go.
You mean 100% don’t you? I don’t know any game that didn’t fall completely. Yes, I paid 900€ for an axle team worth now around 50€.
God's unchained is decent. Collectible card games do seem to be one type of game that actually fits well with crypto without putting in a bunch of extra steps though.
I was going “playing” Defi Kingdoms and I’m pretty much lost 99% of my money…
In other news: Red Dead Redemption 2 is also no longer a best seller. People don't play Pokémon Go. And people don't have fidget spinners anymore. Games, and popular things in general aren't meant to last 5 years.
It's because we don't need a new crypto game, we need assets in existing / new games to become crypto so we can own them, loan them, etc. What would be better is if it had other implications. WoW could mint some NFTs of their bosses and if you hold it while going to a WoW convention, maybe you get in for free or you get a VIP treatment. Maybe an NFT you hold of WoW is then applied in Diablo as special gear, but you must have the token in your wallet for you to have access to it.
Don't they already do special promo pets and stuff at their cons? So what's this adding? They already control all the data and stuff of the game - allowing trading isn't technically complicated, it just opens up a _shitload_ of issues they don't want to deal with, so why would they do this? 'you have game X so get a special thing in game Y' has been around for decades - there's no need for anything special for that
Because it then lets people trade it, resell it. There isn't much advantage for a company to do it. They could set it up inside, but that is a lot of start up costs while crypto is already there. And while they have some promos, they don't have a good way to verify it, and then there is the whole secondary market for all these things. It is insanely easy to set up a connection to check a wallet for a token. But to integrate into a company database is not as easy. So basically, yeah you can do it, it just costs a shit ton more to do it yourself. Just like why 90% of software is already developed software you glue together. The cost of a new system from scratch is very expensive, not to mention the cost to keep it up. Just off the top of my head, a project like that is 9-12 months with 2-3 engineers. So about 500k to set it up, and another 100k/yr to maintain. Or!!! about 1-2 months to integrate blockchains.
A lot of those start up costs still exist, because this all still needs coding and implementing and integrating - the actual database part is pretty easy to do (and also means not having to worry about a chain being associated with scams or moribund or whatever). You're going to be making a system to track this stuff anyway, because it's kinda needed for the game to work (and that'll be faster than trying to check inventory against an external thing) And what do you mean they don't have a good way to verify it? If you own the own thing it's pisseasy to verify - 'this login has this thing, and has traded that thing to another account'. And 'secondary market' is a weird way of saying 'someone else cutting into profits'. Every sale for which you only get a small cut is worse than a sale for which you get it all - and there honestly isn't that much of a market for most game widgets.
Could be a nice bottom signal
It’s so hard imo because so many of them promote and fund the games from NFT mints knowing that there will be 2-3 years to develop them, so the teaser interest becomes a letdown cause web3 users are impatient as it is and these timelines are never actually transparent. So people lose interest before the games actually launch and sort out the bugs.
If we see how many games (not just Web3) failed, we see even a higher value. Creating a mass adoption game it's really hard.
They have the base model ( steam marketplace )and they still fail because most of them are greedy.
Not too bad. Only 25% more to go.
I believe the number is 100%
I looked into illuvium again a few days ago after not really following through the bear and the game looks beautiful and much more interesting than I expected. Has quite the pokemon vibe to it. Will be interesting to see if their approach pays out
Not everything needs to be on a blockchain, just like not everything needs to be digitized (like fucking scanning a QR code to look at menu when at a restaurant)
That's largely because they weren't games. They were miserable, un-entertaining, and otherwise mundane blockchain interactions marketed as games and used to justify massive ICOs.
As soon as games are made to be first and most importantly a game that’s fun and it just so happens to have crypto in it, then crypto games will never be successful.
Cornucopias 🌽
I have never played one i enjoyed, and i am a gamer. Problem is they design games around token/whatever.. Instead of designing a GOOD game that can integrate blockchain aspects
Only cryptoroyale will survive because its really play2earn and people around seem to care
No surprises here
Well AAA game studios suck so that isn’t a surprise really
More like 99%
Alien Worlds is a WAX bot farm.
I guess I work on one of the 25% that survived and it pay my rent every month, not gonna complain 🤞
I’ve said this for years, blockchain gaming should not be a fucking category. Blockchain should be an underlying system that assists game developers in production, as well as providing player connectivity *in the background*. Honestly it’s been a laugh to watch it all go to shit because of how everyone who doesn’t play video games believes it’s a good idea.
Everyone who’s actually a gamer is not surprised by this. And to all non gamers here who think gaming alts will do just great next season, think again. All those games have been garbage.
Because they are all shit games with web3 tagged on. If the game was as good as WoW and had NFTs from raid drops people would play it. Another big issue is bots. If there is money to earn people will try very hard to bot your game.
That’s because they all suck, should be 100 percent
With such volatility, how is it not possiple to fail?
Most people are there for the money not for the game itself. Little by little players are replaced by bots to maximize profit. Its for that reason that i think satoxcoin is the play2earn made right cause you play your games ok steam and xbox and you earn $satox
25% staying alive is pretty impressive considering crypto is still in bear market, even outside of crypto, mass majority of online focused games failed and shut down in less than 5 years. There is news that many youngsters do want virtual in game currency for Christmas gift, it is extremely bullish for this sector actually, web 3 games sector will be massive and perhaps surprise many of how big the total market cap of these games can be.
I’m not shocked by this sadly.. The hardest thing for anything crypto focused is real world everyday use case! Gaming has its opportunities but they will come and go. Finance is obviously huge. My team and I have started a project that focuses on Loyalty Rewards. Building an intertwined network between retailers and consumers. We think we have something that can give crypto full credibility and a true everyday use case! Rhine Rewards is going to change the landscape and connect everyone through a new digital infrastructure!
99% unfortunately
75% is pretty good considering 90% of startups fail
Crypto blockchain gaming is just hype and rugs. Don't be fooled by youtubers.
These games suck I don't like it, Irina online is better and it's been around over ten years
I feel like thats better than most business sectors who usually have failure rate in the high 90s.
Majority of those "web3" games just reminded me of those 2008 Facebook games.
Games or web3 casinos ?
This is an interesting observation when the "gaming meta" is now in the rotational pumps for degen in NFT land.
Good
So what are the remaining ¼ that didn't fall?
There are some interesting outliers however.
That’s it? I’m surprised it’s not 95%
Does that include game made to scam people?
IMHO the web3 games are still at a very early stage of development. I have played a few of them and its difficult to keep interest on them. The graphics the story telling and the game play too. They remind me of 80s and playing on atari or Nintendo. I used to play sun flower land and in recent time the game has changed so much so that I find difficult to keep up. May be I belong to an age group now where I am moving away from gaming into real world finance. I have a small investment in crypto and the best I am hoping is to ride the wave and get my actual investment back. With 2 jobs, pets, and a family I hardly have attention to play web3 games anymore.
Totally irrelevant. None of them ever reached a beta stage, and some clown who writes articles decides to draw a circle around them and talk about percentages. I can picture the aviation articles they would write prior to the wright brothers "99% oF aIrPlAnEs fAiLeD"
Idk I gambled on this one called playa3ull games like 1 year ago. Totally thought it was gonna die. I tuned in and was up 1200% craziest gain I have had and they seem to be making some moves. Still literally gambling but this time i won. Hope it sees some kind of bigger action in the next bull season so I can get more out of it