The Delphi team released a long-term report on the field of encrypted games, summed up the reasons why people like games, the history of game profits, the impact of blockchain technology on games, analyzed the current status of encrypted games, and proposed to use PlayFi to use encryption Currency generates revenue for games.
Here is the core of the report:
Most mainstream players scoff at the idea of introducing cryptocurrencies into gaming. For example, Ubisoft Quartz and, more recently, Dr DisRespect’s Midnight Society, have received strong backlash from mainstream players. Delphi, as a team of gamers and one of the earliest proponents of blockchain gaming, was a little caught off guard. Delphi believes that these criticisms are well-founded, but would like to delve deeper, not just for crypto games, but to analyze the evolution of core monetization practices in the gaming industry and explore the future of crypto games.
Why do people like games?
First, let’s talk about why people are attracted to games. The concept of a “magic circle” was first introduced by Johan Huizinga in his 1938 book “Homo Ludens”, followed by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman in their 2003 book “Rules of Play: Fundamentals of Game Design” Extend it into the context of games.
The magic circle refers to the imaginary boundary between the real world and the game. Reality is often an unfortunate baggage and constraint that many people want to escape. The magic circle of the game can provide them with this safe haven. In magic circles, seemingly mundane acts can take on extraordinary forms due to the extraordinary nature of the human imagination. For example, the simple act of kicking a ball into goal can be completely transformed. Maybe that ball in the net actually represented the winning goal of the World Cup final. Suddenly, billions of people are concerned about this issue, and this moment carries significant and lasting meaning. The difference here is that it takes place within a magical circle, a shared hallucination that is valued by society.
Back in the magic circle, it often leads to a state of flow — a widely studied psychological phenomenon that extends far beyond gaming or sports. This is the state that emerges in situations of high challenge and high skill. If successful in creating an attractive magic circle, the player should focus on the gaming experience and ignore other needs. The outside world should gradually fade out of the background. Chances are you’ve already experienced that “go-to-state” feeling. That’s why so many people love video games – that’s what gaming is really about.
On this point, video games are starting to have problems now. In many cases, playing a game is not free from outside interference. In fact, it has been disturbed by the real thing that people are deeply disturbed by – money. We believe this is a big reason why mainstream players hate cryptocurrencies. Parts of the traditional gaming industry tend to have aggressive monetization practices that sometimes hurt the player experience. So when players think they need to buy NFTs to play early crypto games, or when big publishers announce plans to build games in this space, they think it’s a game maker’s money-making trick and avoid them.
The problems described above are most pronounced in competitive multiplayer games, where some players can pay to boost their performance to beat others, eroding the real competitive fun. These games are often labelled “Pay to Win” and rightfully boycotted. With the advent of cryptocurrencies, and the ability to tokenize and trade in-game assets, many critics worry that blockchain gaming will always move in this direction. Although there is some truth to this view, it is too one-sided and ignores the huge opportunity that cryptocurrencies bring to optimize the gaming experience.
To summarize some of the points we mentioned:
People play games to escape reality; flow states and true immersion enhance this
Skill-based competition is an important driver of making games meaningful
When money affects the core gameplay, it also breaks the above
We believe that much of the criticism of cryptocurrencies and traditional games in the gaming industry stems from the way games are monetized. In an ideal world, one might think that to create the most immersive gaming experience, the impact of money on the core gameplay must be limited. This is not to say that all monetization methods are bad, but that we should look for ways to monetize that don’t compromise the core gameplay or true competitive gameplay. Therefore, this is not to say that games with krypton gold touching the core gameplay are not allowed, because such games must have users. In fact, many Delphi team members love games like this. It is worth noting that these different models exist in different profit ranges and can be implemented in various ways. As ever, there is no one-size-fits-all solution in game design, and there are always nuances in the infinite game design space.
History of game monetization
Before we explore the current incarnation of cryptocurrencies in gaming, it is worth reviewing the evolution of the industry in the context of the above. The video game industry has come a long way as a mainstream phenomenon since the late 1970s, when arcade games ushered in the first golden age of gaming (1978-1982). These early games exuded soul, and the public spectacle of the arcade unlocked deep competitive power for the first time. The quest for high scores and the glory that comes with it is contagious, as it can be shown off to friends and foes alike. These games are skillful, fun, and follow the old adage that good games are easy to learn and hard to master. Given the seemingly ubiquitous nature of modern video games, it seems counterintuitive that early gains could match recent gains. In 1981, the video game industry was $20 billion in revenue. Adjusted for inflation, the figure was $64 billion. In addition, the global game revenue in 2021 is 180 billion US dollars. Novelty aside, what’s the magic behind these early games?
When talking about NOR, Brooks Brown emphasized the idea of ”fair play and the thrill of adventure”. The core idea is that, early on, games offer real risk. Once you get to the front of the line in the arcade, your coins can buy you one life and three lives. If you die, you are out. Better players get more value because they live longer. The best players have the highest level of reward, high scores, and their achievements can be immortalized—everyone understands how difficult it is to get a place on the scoreboard. This incentive structure drives players to want to get better with more practice, which can only be achieved by spending more money. There is even a skill inflection point, beyond which it becomes more cost-effective to be proficient in the game. Importantly, the fairness of the game is also sacrosanct. There are no cheat codes, purchasable upgrades or other consumables in the game to give players an advantage. These games are primitive forms of competition where all variables except the environment are within the player’s control. Unlike many of the games we see in modern times, the user only needs skill to win the game. Fair play and the thrill of adventure.
With the development of the game industry, the emergence of home consoles allows players to get out of the arcade and return to the comfort of their homes. They can now play any game they want at any time without any restrictions. In the years between the rise of consoles and the advent of the Internet, the public perception of arcade games and the competitive spirit surrounding high scores has waned. Before, these top “virtual athletes” could command large audiences, but now that energy has dissipated. Losing all three lives and “death” do not mean the same thing, as the player can respawn for free without any penalty in the real world. Because losing doesn’t matter, winning doesn’t matter. The consequences of actions have changed. As Brooks puts it, “the devaluation of risk cuts the link between player skill and entertainment value”. Eventually, game designers became more reliant on technological advancements, like better graphics and sound, to distract users from this subtle but important change. Henceforth, the eternal cycle of infinite rebirth in the comfort of your home will be the norm. NOR’s previous name was actually Eternal Return, derived from Nietzsche’s Eternal Return.
By the mid-1980s, video games were growing at a rapid pace, with ever-increasing production budgets, producing larger games with increasingly complex mechanics and longer stories. The gaming industry no longer competes directly with sports, but tends to compete with film and television. Decades on, we’ve seen this trend toward high production value games, writing in Netflix’s Q4 2019 investor letter: “We’re more competitive with Fortnite than HBO.”
In the ’80s, ’90s, and ’00s, the industry was dominated by buyout AAA games – for which you had to pay a substantial up-front cost, usually $60. These games are released on CD or cassette and played on PC and/or consoles like Sony Playstation or Nintendo GameBoy Advance.
The “pay to play” business model means that only gamers with the requisite hardware (such as a console or gaming computer) and willing to spend $60 can afford to play these video games. While these experiences are precious, the popularity of video games around the world is limited—in 2001, the best-selling video game Pokémon Gold/Silver/Crystal sold just 3.1 million copies. By comparison, Garena: Free Fire has more than 100 times as many users, and currently has 311,250,355 monthly active users.
Furthermore, the developer’s capture of value is limited – there is no effective price discrimination, meaning players willing to pay thousands of dollars for a gaming experience are spending their money for nothing. This has changed significantly with the advent of free-to-play and mobile games.
Mobile games and free-to-play have propelled the gaming business to dizzying new heights. Today, revenue from mobile games ($85 billion) exceeds that of PCs ($40 billion) and consoles ($33 billion) combined. Due to the huge distribution advantages of digital-first games, the industry has begun to gravitate towards making free-to-play games. This has opened the door to gaming for more than 3 billion people around the world, with the average age of gamers today being 35. Although the game is free to start, the game still needs to be profitable in order to be funded. The mobile age has spawned two main strategies: advertising and the most controversial of microtransactions (including charging players extra), and these in-game advantages: convenience, time, and power over other players.
While most of these in-game paid items initially revolved around game skins and other transactions that didn’t affect game balance, in many cases it shifted. Games are designed and developed based on behaviorism, not fun perspectives. By focusing on improving user retention, before tiered monetization, the free-to-play industry created a series of behaviorist mechanisms that rely on the psychology of addiction in order to retain and monetize players. This includes the appointment mechanism, using notifications and social features to keep players logged in constantly.
On the dark side, developers deliberately create obstacles and uncomfortable situations for players to incentivize them to spend money to overcome those obstacles. For example, players are allowed to steal resources, and players are encouraged to purchase shields to protect resources while offline. Furthermore, since many games rely on “catching” and monetizing big users (whales), the success of a game also depends on its economic depth, or how much whales are able to spend in those games. For example, fans of Diablo: Immortal estimate that players may need to spend $600,000 to fully level up a character. Certain parts of the current gaming industry are more inclined to allow kryptonite, which makes the gaming experience worse for non-kryptonite players.
This is especially corrosive in multiplayer games where big consumers (whale players) feel superior because of an unfair advantage. The market has spoken, and this business model is clearly very attractive to many developers. Unfortunately, some studios are overly aggressive with this model and have rattled relationships with player bases who see their actions as predatory. Again, developers use these practices to varying degrees, from acceptable to extreme. Not all implementations of this mode are overt, and games like Rainbow Six: Siege don’t ostensibly have any advantages that you can buy. However, there are subtler and more indirect manifestations, such as the release of new operator roles that deliberately shake metadata to encourage user consumption. In the most extreme cases, the popular skins in most modern games don’t confer in-game utility, but some players still see them as an advantage in competitive scenarios.
In conclusion, in typical S-curve style, some aspects of the industry have shifted from user appeal to value extraction. Many of these monetization methods are so ingrained that everyone is forced to play the same game. We’ve seen monetization-level design stagnate, with various psychological tricks to attract players becoming more formulaic over time. Microtransactions and kryptonite can erode the notion of the magic circle, confounding the axes that drive the flow state, and ultimately ruining the player’s experience. Cryptocurrencies represent the next step in the evolution of monetization in gaming, and whether it can change this trend will be discussed later.
blockchain in games
Before we delve into the current generation of crypto gaming, it is worth reviewing some features of blockchain technology that we thought would be interesting to apply to gaming. Below, we will analyze these advantages from the perspective of players and developers, respectively.
For players, we see the following key benefits:
Digital property rights: In traditional games, digital items purchased by players (such as skins in Fortnite) are actually just “rented” from the game company. When game assets become NFTs, players and their achievements have new guarantees. If the game stops functioning, other parties could theoretically step in and acknowledge the utility of these assets, which may still have lasting collectible value even if the game doesn’t exist.
Liquidity in secondary markets: True digital ownership changes consumer psychology, creating residual value for digital purchases in a global, verifiable liquidity layer. If users wish to leave an ecosystem, they can retain value from their investments.
Source: Virtual goods now have a rich, verifiable history. For example, if your favorite esports player wins the world championship, you can get a signature skin for the weapon he uses in the game.
Community Governance: Players can now participate in the development of their favorite games through DAOs and committees
Value Accumulation: As more and more players invest time and money in the game world, the value created by the game can visibly accumulate into ecosystem tokens.
On-Chain Reputation: Unlocks a new player-centric design space as players can now build strong player profiles across ecosystems. We’ll explore some of its uses later in the PlayFi section.
Web3 Payments Infrastructure: By using crypto payment rails, seamless payments are possible across many use cases such as smart contract prize pools and tournament winnings – which are particularly burdensome in traditional eSports.
For creators and developers:
Increased profit margins: Compared to the free-to-play model where an average of less than 2% of players buy in-game items, there is a higher chance of making money from players. The ability to monetize from the “long tail” of users comes from a deeper willingness to spend, driven by the previously mentioned player interests (eg digital asset ownership, provenance, etc.).
Enhanced Economic Alignment: Sharing part of the economy with players and creators in the game economy means lower user acquisition costs and greater retention than traditional free-to-play games, resulting in higher lifetimes (LTV).
Improved creator economy: In UGC games like Roblox, creators only get 30%. For blockchain games, creators typically keep more of the value they create and benefit from on-chain royalties.
Interoperability and composability: While this will take time, blockchain technology has the potential to enable interactions across ecosystems by leveraging existing building blocks and open source infrastructure. Interoperability between different games is very difficult, and composability with a wider web3 technology stack would be a more promising innovation.
In the end, it would be a big mistake to not stress that crypto has brought very noticeable improvements to the game financing space. As many of you probably know, the Tencent-style monopoly across the industry has built an unbreakable moat. Most aspiring game developers create games out of a raw passion, but they quickly realize that the stagnation of mainstream business models and the moats built by the big developers only give them two options:
Try spending years working on creating predatory free-to-play mechanics and hopefully you can work out the LTV > UA cost formula.
Drop your creativity and become a cog in the big corporate machine.
The triple-A gaming industry is often criticized for its toxic work culture of devoting a lot of time to insane work during brutally critical moments. What’s more, the entrenched F2P model is sometimes overly biased towards value extraction, which has robbed many games of their soul. In the process, many people’s love for the game was stolen. At the same time, the industry’s demand for talent far outstrips supply.
In the typical free-to-play world, it’s not uncommon for marketing budgets to match development budgets, as tedious UA costs make it hard for players to get past the noise. In a cryptographic model, this marketing budget can be deployed in an incentive design to steer the economy. Many of the world’s best games are born in organic grassroots communities, not in the R&D labs of multi-billion dollar gaming giants. Likewise, the creator economy opens up a world where people can pursue their interests, and the same goes for game developers.
Contemporary Crypto Games
Crypto gaming has taken 2021 by storm, but it has lost some of its appeal as user stickiness wanes. While this mode isn’t perfect, it has many advantages over traditional games. As mentioned earlier, crypto can unlock digital property rights, verifiable secondary market liquidity, community governance, shared ownership structures, and significantly enhance financing options for developers. The downside is that with the tokenization of most in-game assets, the economy becomes more difficult to manage. This is the most difficult early on, which seems counterintuitive because the game is released in stages, which means most of the game’s content and economy may not work. This often results in a considerable increase in the supply side of the economy without the necessary offsetting demand to absorb that growth. In this case, game developers often create many means that can be adjusted to help maintain the balance of the economy, but their means are limited without full game functionality.
The combination of liquidity in all parts of the economy with the game loop will cause the economy to overheat. In the beginning, the initial scarcity of all resources in the game, combined with pure financial speculation by non-players, helps keep demand in sync with supply. This dynamic creates an enticing environment for purely extractive actors. These players exacerbate the imbalance we discussed earlier because they join early, creating more demand for consumable yielding assets and the consumables they produce. As the supply of assets increases rapidly, it is not being met by the appropriate level of demand that exists in a more complete economy. Due to oversupply, prices start to fall, and extractive game players and purely speculative market players leave. This further exacerbates the mismatch between supply and demand, as demand is destroyed as they exit, leaving the economy in limbo.
A potential solution is to limit the transferability of consumable items early in the game until more game components and economies are established. They won’t be on-chain, they’re just tied to the account that produced those resources. This curbs the possibility of economies overheating before they can handle such supply levels. It also lowers the price of early-stage assets, as there are no open-ended assets that yield yields whose prices are temporarily pushed up to astronomical amounts by speculative capitalists in this game. The asset price spikes caused by these value extractors will ultimately deter players who are genuinely interested in it. By temporarily limiting transferability, it is a good solution to allow real players to claim these items on the chain in the future.
Another solution is to limit the economic relevance or longevity of these consumable game items or assets. By giving players an early expectation that these assets will not generate permanent ROI, teams will be able to better manage and tune their economies. Such as setting up seasonal resets for the economy (such as Diablo 2’s ladder mode, the “Path of Exile” season), setting resources that will expire, or setting life cycles for in-game assets.
Still, the introduction of a money element into the game has made it the dominant motivation so far. As a result, the gameplay of these early games was affected in two ways: 1) the dominant motivation for most players was the expectation of monetary rewards, not the game itself; 2) the core competitive mechanics were constrained by the krypton gold mechanics, as whale players could Succeed with Krypton Gold.
In 2019, Delphi helped design AXS, Axie Infinity’s in-game governance token. At the time, Axie Infinity had very few players, and no one in the community really expected the virality and dominance of “Play-2-Earn” (play while earning). Still, we ended up in a situation where most players were just pure value extractors, new user growth was stagnant, and the in-game economy was in recession.
Guilds, such as the Yield Guild, are now emerging to seek professionalization and industrialization of academic models, and these organizations pair users with large assets to unlock economic opportunities for large populations. It’s worth highlighting the real impact this has on thousands of people in countries like the Philippines, where earning while playing has really changed the lives of many during COVID. In 2021, we see guilds receive $512 million in public and private market funding. Most of these funds are used to invest in in-game assets, as well as venture capital in the game itself. Because of this buying pressure, we’ve found that most fast-following games follow this trend and try to accommodate similar mechanics. Arguably, this field may have started an incentive loop in game and economy design without fully considering whether this is the best path.
We believe that guilds exist primarily to coordinate the extraction of resources in the game, which has deviated from their original vision. Unfortunately, as is often the case with cryptocurrencies, many of the current “players” in the crypto gaming space are mercenary in nature. Like yield farming, users seem to be drawn to the strongest incentives, rather than being truly enthusiastic about the game. Not only will this cause developers to overpay for early users, but it will also hurt the experience of real players. These early games overemphasized monetization and ended up confusing players’ natural needs.
We still believe that there will be a lot of demand for financialized games that choose to put most of the economy on-chain. These games bring a new form of gameplay where skill and advanced knowledge of in-game metadata can create alpha in game economics and bring financial rewards to dedicated and savvy players.
The bottom line for these financialized games is that the percentage of players who are purely extracting value is smaller than those who are willing to pay for entertainment. Ideally, players who extract value provide useful or interesting content to paying players. We consider this first generation of crypto games to be an extension of traditional games.
It is very important for developers of blockchain games to have a clear understanding of what they are creating and who they are targeting. We believe that many developers are taking the decision to open the economy too lightly, not fully appreciating the complexities involved in effectively navigating this path.
Using cryptocurrencies to generate revenue for games
Another mode the Delphi Gaming team is exploring in depth recently is called PlayFi, pioneered by NOR. We think this model is very suitable for eSports and competitive gaming, and Delphi will actively support projects moving forward with these philosophies. To better explain this, it is necessary to modify the concept of the magic circle in the game. True player agency and a state of free flow, unencumbered by the forces surrounding it vying for human attention, are the reasons why great games like Smash Bros. stand the test of time. Games that refuse to compromise on these core principles are characterized by elegance and purity. Furthermore, games that follow this model appear to be immune to the ephemeral influences of the contemporary digital environment. For example, Counter-Strike remains strong as one of the greatest competitive shooters of all time, while many other games have had their ups and downs around it. Much of this can be learned from the way traditional sports work.
In pro sports mode, almost without exception, the core game mechanics are very basic and very easy to pick up. For example, in a football game, the player’s goal is to kick the ball into the net. The game has certain fixed parameters; the beam has a certain height, the goalposts have a certain width, and the ball has a certain size and weight.
Also, it is easy for players to engage in these sports. Anyone who wants to be an athlete doesn’t need to go far to find a ball and a goal…usually, the sport is easy to pick up, but hard to master. In the many derivative configurations of football, players may like to introduce gambling to raise the stakes and expand the competitive spirit.
Importantly, as these scenarios become more competitive, players will become more skilled and the overall difficulty will rise. As the level increases, so does the profit margin. And these experiences are scarce. There are only so many players in the world who can compete at this level and they stand at the top of a huge talent pool. As a result, we are seeing a dramatic expansion of engagement opportunities in the form of coaches, fans, commentators, analysts, scouts, prediction markets, merchandise, collectibles, and more outside the core game. As Brooks puts it: “The strong link between increased game difficulty and increased economic opportunity/engagement is at the root of the professional sports model, and at the root of PlayFi.”
Essentially, we can think of the monetization model of sports as one that revolves entirely around metagames. These metagames are like spinoffs of purely skill-based games. Metadata can be thought of as data that describes other data. By extension, metagames can be thought of as derivative games that describe or are rooted in the core game. Importantly, the market game is distinct from the core competitive cycle.
At its core, football is not a market game—it’s a game of skill on the pitch. Its path to monetization starts with a focus on sports itself, then takes metadata from the games that make the most sense, and plays metagames with them.
In the context of video games, where we’ve acknowledged that the core magic circle of games must remain intact, one might wonder how we can accommodate larger users who aren’t interested in personally getting to the top of a game. After all, there are countless user archetypes in modern games, including whale players with a desire to spend, speculators who want to bet on top players, and more casual players who enjoy the game in other ways. If left out of control, money will always be biased towards the dominant motive. So the first thing we did was to separate the market game from the core game loop. In this way, we can begin to define separate magic circles that coordinate with each other, but do not interfere with each other. No one can be tricked into playing another game.
As with the professional sports model, the scarcity of the experience matters. This is reflected in both the technical level and the rhythm of the game. In football, for example, Ronaldo only steps on that pitch once a week. Limiting the frequency of these competing situations further promotes meaning. In NOR, the scarcity and real risk of player experience is driven by perma-death tournaments. In every game, the players themselves are NFTs that are permanently burned. They completely own their data and metadata and benefit directly from the economy around the core game. The goal of the PlayFi model is to encourage users outside of core competitors to play metagames using metadata. In theory, the more people care about games, the more they spend directly on metagames. By maximizing meaning generation and competition in the core game, we are able to maximize revenue through peripheral monetization.
Additionally, we retain the promotional benefits of the free-to-play model, as players can play the game for free, and we can effectively price differentiate those players who are willing to spend more on the metagame. We also avoid the drawbacks of krypton gold games.
At the heart of this framework is skill-based competition, which requires the operation of the competition system. NFTs are the underlying technology that allows us to tokenize any unique digital item – including event tickets. For example, let’s take a look at the image below, which has a total of 8 entry-level card slots. These starting points can all be sold in the primary auction and then freely traded on the secondary market without affecting the core gameplay. Smart contracts representing the prize pool may receive 50% of all revenue (except for sponsors), further increasing the appeal of the competition.
While this may sound somewhat similar to some modern eSports, with the infusion of Web3 technology, eventually cryptocurrencies will act primarily as a backend accounting engine, facilitating ticketing, payments, player NFT contracts (on-chain reputation), automated match bounties smart contracts, etc. Cryptocurrencies unlock new levels of transparency for player profiles, deep liquidity layers facilitate seamless payments, and give people new ways to place bets without navigating heavy infrastructure. Additionally, many of the properties of cryptography, such as digital provenance, have opened up a new way for us to think about the digital realm. For example, buying NFT skins for e-sports competitions.
We now have a rich digital experience where fans can collect items from meaningful moments in esports history. What’s exciting about building this kind of architecture in crypto is its ability to unlock an open-source infrastructure that can be used for many applications across the industry. All esports-style games should meet the same standards. Once all the data, metadata and infrastructure is brought together in one place, we can let third parties come in and develop their own metagames around those games. It’s hard to imagine how many more popular downstream applications this will lead to, but we’re excited to see new modes and gameplay emerge. Once the technical foundation is laid, we believe that users will drive creativity within their respective ecosystems. We need to spend some time researching the best metagames for professional events, and we hope PlayFi does the same.
In the game of “play and earn”, the tokenization of game assets not only increases the start-up cost, because players need NFT to play the game, and because game assets are NFTs with secondary market liquidity, the krypton gold mechanism is gradually increasing. Competitive gameplay is weakened. In PlayFi mode, the first change is that users are not required to own NFTs to play games. In other words, make it like any other normal video game. Importantly, this does not mean that NFTs cannot and will not exist. Rare and unique digital assets still have their uses, but the way these assets enter the game matters. For example, I might still get a digital collectible as a reward, but it should make sense to me in a gaming environment. Additionally, because all monetization can occur outside of the game, we are able to alleviate many of the publishing frictions associated with crypto games in traditional app stores.
Interestingly, these components don’t conflict with current P2E games and guilds, but instead serve as a facilitator. For example, a game like Axie could offer free mini-game modes that are purely skill-based and reward NFTs to tournament winners as a true badge of honor. This also reduces resistance for new players to accept the game.
Guilds like YGG can continue to grow their businesses, not just provide players with liquidity to bootstrap new game ecosystems, and are now able to use players’ NFT attributes to attract talent into them like traditional esports teams ‘s guild. They can then put them in competitions, win prizes, and be rewarded for their efforts.
While not yet market-proven, we believe PlayFi has the necessary elements to propel esports into its golden age and unlock its true potential as a global entertainment heavyweight. We will actively support the infrastructure construction of NOR and other projects in this field.
The past 12+ months have been milestones for the crypto game, and despite all the growing pains, we look forward more than ever to playing a role in its development. It’s early days in this area, which makes it difficult to determine which models will win out over time. As proponents of this space, we must regularly challenge our assumptions and try to map out new ways that these technologies can improve games for players and developers.
We think this is an excellent time for developers to reflect on the complexities of open economies and how easily these games are over-financialized. We hope that through the path provided by PlayFi, we can further explore how encryption technology can improve games and monetization models. The only way we want to change mainstream perceptions is to create experiences that demonstrate the power of this technology.
Posted by:CoinYuppie，Reprinted with attribution to:https://coinyuppie.com/delphi-digital-long-report-the-future-of-crypto-gaming-is-playfi/
Coinyuppie is an open information publishing platform, all information provided is not related to the views and positions of coinyuppie, and does not constitute any investment and financial advice. Users are expected to carefully screen and prevent risks.