4 ms·

I dunno, the model is compelling from a business perspective because you don’t have to pay to make content up front. Instead, charge royalties on user-generated

I dunno, the model is compelling from a business perspective because you don’t have to pay to make content up front. Instead, charge royalties on user-generated content revenue. Roblox already does this well. I wouldn’t dismiss the whole thing out of hand.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tmpz22 4y ago
> the model is compelling from a business perspective So is alchemy
- reidjs 4y ago
  Are you talking about the web3 platform, alchemy? https://www.alchemy.com/ https://www.alchemy.com/
josephg 4y ago
It works for Roblox because the game is the content. Likewise for Mario Maker, or WC3 custom maps. It works because players evaluate the content based on how fun it is. But if I'm building something like Diablo I'll have a carefully crafted progression system for my game. If the "content" is in-game items then the best items will be the most powerful - that is, the ones which let players skip to the end of the game. And if my game's progression system can be completely ignored because someone owns a space laser they bought in another game for money, it ruins the game for everyone. - The art becomes a non-cohesive mess. - The players who don't have a space laser feel like their in-game progression has suddenly become meaningless. Clearly the real progression is being able to afford items with real money out of the game - and they don't play diablo to feel poor. - And the player who has the cool space laser has all the struggle and progress taken away from them. A sense of fulfillment is created by struggling at something then eventually succeeding. You can't feel fulfilled if you don't first struggle. (Thats what the middle of a game is for.) If you skip that by spending real money, its not fun. Even pay-to-win games have loot box mechanics and a money based progression system for the people who pay. You can make the art be cosmetic only, but that has its own set of problems. Fashion is valuable in part because of scarcity. Fortnite, Team Fortress and Dota2 create that scarcity by controlling what assets are included in the game. Scarcity is ruined if anyone can mint another NFT of the same jpeg with a single pixel changed. And you have the obvious problems of people drawing "adult content", and so on. It works for VRChat, but most of VRChat's content is off limits to most players (on devices like the Quest) because of how non-child friendly it can be. An in-house art team could easily be cheaper than the moderation team you'd need. Virtual worlds with cryptocurrency derived items seems to be a lot of smoke and not a lot of fire. Given how many people are excited by the idea, and how much money there is to be made if someone gets it right, I find it telling that there still aren't any compelling games built on these concepts.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

tmpz22 4y ago

> the model is compelling from a business perspective So is alchemy

reidjs 4y ago
Are you talking about the web3 platform, alchemy? https://www.alchemy.com/ https://www.alchemy.com/

josephg 4y ago

It works for Roblox because the game is the content. Likewise for Mario Maker, or WC3 custom maps. It works because players evaluate the content based on how fun it is. But if I'm building something like Diablo I'll have a carefully crafted progression system for my game. If the "content" is in-game items then the best items will be the most powerful - that is, the ones which let players skip to the end of the game. And if my game's progression system can be completely ignored because someone owns a space laser they bought in another game for money, it ruins the game for everyone. - The art becomes a non-cohesive mess. - The players who don't have a space laser feel like their in-game progression has suddenly become meaningless. Clearly the real progression is being able to afford items with real money out of the game - and they don't play diablo to feel poor. - And the player who has the cool space laser has all the struggle and progress taken away from them. A sense of fulfillment is created by struggling at something then eventually succeeding. You can't feel fulfilled if you don't first struggle. (Thats what the middle of a game is for.) If you skip that by spending real money, its not fun. Even pay-to-win games have loot box mechanics and a money based progression system for the people who pay. You can make the art be cosmetic only, but that has its own set of problems. Fashion is valuable in part because of scarcity. Fortnite, Team Fortress and Dota2 create that scarcity by controlling what assets are included in the game. Scarcity is ruined if anyone can mint another NFT of the same jpeg with a single pixel changed. And you have the obvious problems of people drawing "adult content", and so on. It works for VRChat, but most of VRChat's content is off limits to most players (on devices like the Quest) because of how non-child friendly it can be. An in-house art team could easily be cheaper than the moderation team you'd need. Virtual worlds with cryptocurrency derived items seems to be a lot of smoke and not a lot of fire. Given how many people are excited by the idea, and how much money there is to be made if someone gets it right, I find it telling that there still aren't any compelling games built on these concepts.