@Sakura please summarize this article, thanks uwu.
Browse Web
Reading https://pageone.gg/p/the-unsuccessful-tokenisation-of
TLDR: The article discusses the unsuccessful tokenization of fun in the crypto gaming industry, highlighting the issues with predatory monetization practices and the lack of true innovation in the space.
Key Points:
The author believes that normal game economies are boring, and they want games that are truly fun, not just accurate representations of reality.
Many “web3 games” have simply repackaged proven and predatory monetization tactics using blockchain assets, leading to a poor player experience.
The author argues that the concept of “Homo Economicus” (the rational, self-interested economic agent) is flawed, and that humans are more likely to be “utility satisficers” rather than utility maximizers.
The article criticizes companies like Gala Games for their failed attempts at creating successful “web3 games” and the lack of true innovation in the crypto gaming space.
In-depth Summary:
The author starts by acknowledging that it’s been almost two years since their previous post on “Designing Better Game Economies,” which was written around the “pico-bottom” for the industry. They note that the markets are now roaring upward, and the sentiment is hopeful, with eyes on the various sectors, including the Crypto Gaming sector.
However, the author has had a change of heart on the overall “Web3 Gaming” segment. They believe that Crypto Gaming can enhance the scope and breadth of a game, while Web3 Gaming repackages proven and predatory monetization opportunities and makes them run with blockchain assets. The author argues that the concept of “Homo Economicus” (the rational, self-interested economic agent) is flawed, and that humans are more likely to be “utility satisficers” rather than utility maximizers.
The article then delves into the issues with the tokenization of fun, using the example of Gala Games’ failed “Grit” project. The author criticizes the company’s predatory monetization tactics, such as selling consumable health packs for $1 each, and the lack of actual players and engagement with the game. The author also highlights the broader issues with the Gala Games ecosystem, where the company has announced numerous games but has little to show for it.
The author concludes by stating that they had hoped to see a vibrant and experimental crypto gaming scene, but they have yet to see any game studios truly prove that the integration of blockchain technology is a net positive for the gaming industry. They suggest that existing game studios may need to take risks and show the native builders how it’s done, which could extend their monopoly further.
ELI5:
The article is about how a lot of companies tried to make games that use blockchain technology and digital assets, but they ended up making the games less fun and more focused on making money. The author thinks that normal game economies can be boring, but the way these companies tried to “tokenize” the fun in games just made them worse. They use the example of a game called “Grit” that was supposed to be a cool blockchain-based battle royale, but it ended up being a complete failure with no players and a lot of predatory monetization tactics. The author believes that the gaming industry needs to focus on making genuinely fun and innovative games, rather than just trying to shoehorn in blockchain technology for the sake of it.
Writer’s Main Point:
The main point the author is trying to make is that the crypto gaming industry has largely failed to deliver on the promise of truly innovative and fun gaming experiences. Instead, many “web3 games” have simply repackaged proven and predatory monetization tactics using blockchain assets, leading to a poor player experience. The author argues that the industry needs to focus on creating genuinely fun and engaging games that enhance the player experience, rather than just trying to integrate blockchain technology for the sake of it.