4 ms·

I don’t put much stock into play to earn and current VC funded blockchain games. There’s two areas of blockchain gaming I think are interesting to explore: 1.

I don’t put much stock into play to earn and current VC funded blockchain games. There’s two areas of blockchain gaming I think are interesting to explore: 1. Decentralized games like Dark Forest that allow a game developer to set rules in smart contracts, and users to build around that game permissionlessly.[1] 2. A new model for marketplaces, particularly user generated content. This could be for a game (eg: mods), or game engine (eg: unity assets), or just an app (eg: Figma plugins). The primary benefit here is minimizing the 2-30% take-rates of current intermediaries, adding interoperability across ecosystems (such as ownership of an asset across multiple competing app stores), faster settlements, and trustless withdrawals. This is probably another couple years away from happening as it requires robust zkEVM/zkRollup tech and better privacy features, which are currently constrained by computation & regulation. I wrote about this idea here.[2] [1] https://blog.zkga.me/ https://blog.zkga.me/ [2] https://gist.github.com/mattdesl/ec2bf085b19407695b23cb90f6fdd2b7 https://gist.github.com/mattdesl/ec2bf085b19407695b23cb90f6f...

yunohn 4y ago
> The primary benefit here is minimizing the 2-30% take-rates of current intermediaries Why would said intermediaries spend R&D time and money implementing a system that reduces their take rate?? > to set rules in smart contracts Why exactly does this need to run on a generic chain like ETH with unnecessary overhead and fees, to function?
- mattdesl 4y ago
  Intermediaries like Apple are not the ones building and interested in this, it is the game developers like those currently building Dark Forest and their players. This should not run on ETH mainnet, it should run on a L2 rollup that allows transactions to be submitted with fees that are in fractions of a cent. The L2 can be built atop ETH to allow users to permissionlessly withdraw tokens to it and to inherit the security of that chain.
  - yunohn 4y ago
    Apple/Google do not want to allow fee-less in-app transactions. The game developers also don’t want to allow a free in-game market. This is something only consumers want, but then the creators won’t make money. Either way, consumers won’t get to decide this. Why do you need a roll up? What security do you need if the L2 itself is able to manage a simple ledger…
    - mattdesl 4y ago
      The game developers can charge for the upfront cost of purchasing the game and starting an account. They can also charge a take-rate for each transaction in their official marketplace (this is how OpenSea makes money, and it's also how Minecraft Marketplace makes money). There are also plenty of indie game developers who are happy to publish games for free, without taking profit. > Why do you need a roll up? What security do you need if the L2 itself is able to manage a simple ledger… The main benefit of the roll up compared to a simple ledger is that you can still use all the same blockchain features such as issuing ERC20/ERC721 assets, creating decentralized markets, escrowed auctions, and so forth. The benefit of a rollup compared to a side-chain like Polygon is that it is theoretically more secure. At no point can the rollup owner control user funds, and they also cannot block a user from withdrawing their assets from the L2 back to ETH mainnet.
      - yunohn 4y ago
        One time payment games and micro transaction games already exist. Consumers prefer the former and despite the latter, and absolutely hate ones which have both! Are you a gamer at all? The roll up part makes no sense at all, I think you’re missing my point entirely.
        mattdesl 4y ago
        The game developer can decide how to monetize. They can charge $0 or $1 or $50 for the game itself, and take 0% or 5% or 25% from each transaction in the UGC marketplace. An "Ethereum Rollup" is just a "fast blockchain" that has very similar security guarantees as Ethereum. If you wanted to take payments, create UGC markets, and record asset ownership without a blockchain, you are back to centralized services and their constraints. I do play and develop games and have spent $ on games, and would like more of my $ to go toward the game publisher and content creators rather than intermediaries and app stores. I also would like to own digital assets that are more composable, and not tied to a single company's servers or app stores. This is the model that Dark Forest[1] is exploring. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUtIiVUwB5o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUtIiVUwB5o
PeterisP 4y ago
All the features you describe are the ones that major developers definitely do not want - not as in they don't care or don't understand, but they would want to ensure that they aren't possible for their content, that their content is not made available on any platforms with such features, and that any existing platforms which have their content will have legally binding promises that they won't. Owners of major franchises definitely don't want their assets to be able to be used permissionlessly, that's effectively a taboo word - they have strong interests and will (demonstrated by investments, declined deals, legal action) to ensure that they keep effective control over how their assets will be used. It's not about technical features enabling interoperability, it's about Disney saying that they will permit Vader skins that can be transferred to game B only if it is clear that this will increase total revenue i.e. if someone pays them a significant amount of money corresponding to what users might have spent on re-buying these skins if interoperability wasn't possible (and IMHO no one in the ecosystem would be willing to pay that) and under conditions that they will be able to control further interoperability to some future game C. Sure, if users 'actually owned' these skins, that wouldn't be an issue - so that's why content owners would never ever permit users to actually own these skins, not at any reasonable price, since that would permanently harm their long-term potential of extracting more money from that IP. Licensing their usage for everything from toys to other company advertisements is their core business, and they are very much aware of the value of control. They'll license it for a limited time for a limited use under terms that they'll control, that's it. And for the many platforms that thrive on user-generated content, asserting at least some control over that content (again, contrary to being permissionless and interoperable) is their key value proposition; being a privileged unavoidable intermediary is their whole business model which they would harm by adopting your proposals, so they won't.
- mattdesl 4y ago
  I am not suggesting Disney or Microsoft will want anything other than maximum control over their own intellectual property and their user’s assets. From the article: > This is unlikely to ever feature in Minecraft, but may used by experimental indie game publishers who are interested in decentralized networks. And also: > allowing users to create unregulated and uncontrolled crypto markets on [Minecraft] could eaisly divert funds and profits away from Microsoft and their App Store partners. Thankfully there are many indie and experimental game developers that are not Disney and Microsoft. If you want a specific example of a game that answers “Who is this for?” look at Dark Forest developers and players, and anybody else that wants to build or play a similar game. > And for the many platforms that thrive on user-generated content, asserting at least some control over that content .. is their key value proposition This is not the case with LooksRare, SudoSwap and even to some extent OpenSea. The key value proposition of these platforms is a marketplace that easily allows you to sell and trade assets that the platform itself does not own the IP rights to. Similar types of businesses: Gumroad, second hand book shops, Turbosquid, art auction houses.

yunohn 4y ago

> The primary benefit here is minimizing the 2-30% take-rates of current intermediaries Why would said intermediaries spend R&D time and money implementing a system that reduces their take rate?? > to set rules in smart contracts Why exactly does this need to run on a generic chain like ETH with unnecessary overhead and fees, to function?

mattdesl 4y ago
Intermediaries like Apple are not the ones building and interested in this, it is the game developers like those currently building Dark Forest and their players. This should not run on ETH mainnet, it should run on a L2 rollup that allows transactions to be submitted with fees that are in fractions of a cent. The L2 can be built atop ETH to allow users to permissionlessly withdraw tokens to it and to inherit the security of that chain.
- yunohn 4y ago
  Apple/Google do not want to allow fee-less in-app transactions. The game developers also don’t want to allow a free in-game market. This is something only consumers want, but then the creators won’t make money. Either way, consumers won’t get to decide this. Why do you need a roll up? What security do you need if the L2 itself is able to manage a simple ledger…
  - mattdesl 4y ago
    The game developers can charge for the upfront cost of purchasing the game and starting an account. They can also charge a take-rate for each transaction in their official marketplace (this is how OpenSea makes money, and it's also how Minecraft Marketplace makes money). There are also plenty of indie game developers who are happy to publish games for free, without taking profit. > Why do you need a roll up? What security do you need if the L2 itself is able to manage a simple ledger… The main benefit of the roll up compared to a simple ledger is that you can still use all the same blockchain features such as issuing ERC20/ERC721 assets, creating decentralized markets, escrowed auctions, and so forth. The benefit of a rollup compared to a side-chain like Polygon is that it is theoretically more secure. At no point can the rollup owner control user funds, and they also cannot block a user from withdrawing their assets from the L2 back to ETH mainnet.
    - yunohn 4y ago
      One time payment games and micro transaction games already exist. Consumers prefer the former and despite the latter, and absolutely hate ones which have both! Are you a gamer at all? The roll up part makes no sense at all, I think you’re missing my point entirely.
      - mattdesl 4y ago
        The game developer can decide how to monetize. They can charge $0 or $1 or $50 for the game itself, and take 0% or 5% or 25% from each transaction in the UGC marketplace. An "Ethereum Rollup" is just a "fast blockchain" that has very similar security guarantees as Ethereum. If you wanted to take payments, create UGC markets, and record asset ownership without a blockchain, you are back to centralized services and their constraints. I do play and develop games and have spent $ on games, and would like more of my $ to go toward the game publisher and content creators rather than intermediaries and app stores. I also would like to own digital assets that are more composable, and not tied to a single company's servers or app stores. This is the model that Dark Forest[1] is exploring. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUtIiVUwB5o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUtIiVUwB5o

PeterisP 4y ago

All the features you describe are the ones that major developers definitely do not want - not as in they don't care or don't understand, but they would want to ensure that they aren't possible for their content, that their content is not made available on any platforms with such features, and that any existing platforms which have their content will have legally binding promises that they won't. Owners of major franchises definitely don't want their assets to be able to be used permissionlessly, that's effectively a taboo word - they have strong interests and will (demonstrated by investments, declined deals, legal action) to ensure that they keep effective control over how their assets will be used. It's not about technical features enabling interoperability, it's about Disney saying that they will permit Vader skins that can be transferred to game B only if it is clear that this will increase total revenue i.e. if someone pays them a significant amount of money corresponding to what users might have spent on re-buying these skins if interoperability wasn't possible (and IMHO no one in the ecosystem would be willing to pay that) and under conditions that they will be able to control further interoperability to some future game C. Sure, if users 'actually owned' these skins, that wouldn't be an issue - so that's why content owners would never ever permit users to actually own these skins, not at any reasonable price, since that would permanently harm their long-term potential of extracting more money from that IP. Licensing their usage for everything from toys to other company advertisements is their core business, and they are very much aware of the value of control. They'll license it for a limited time for a limited use under terms that they'll control, that's it. And for the many platforms that thrive on user-generated content, asserting at least some control over that content (again, contrary to being permissionless and interoperable) is their key value proposition; being a privileged unavoidable intermediary is their whole business model which they would harm by adopting your proposals, so they won't.

mattdesl 4y ago
I am not suggesting Disney or Microsoft will want anything other than maximum control over their own intellectual property and their user’s assets. From the article: > This is unlikely to ever feature in Minecraft, but may used by experimental indie game publishers who are interested in decentralized networks. And also: > allowing users to create unregulated and uncontrolled crypto markets on [Minecraft] could eaisly divert funds and profits away from Microsoft and their App Store partners. Thankfully there are many indie and experimental game developers that are not Disney and Microsoft. If you want a specific example of a game that answers “Who is this for?” look at Dark Forest developers and players, and anybody else that wants to build or play a similar game. > And for the many platforms that thrive on user-generated content, asserting at least some control over that content .. is their key value proposition This is not the case with LooksRare, SudoSwap and even to some extent OpenSea. The key value proposition of these platforms is a marketplace that easily allows you to sell and trade assets that the platform itself does not own the IP rights to. Similar types of businesses: Gumroad, second hand book shops, Turbosquid, art auction houses.