How can Web3 games break out of the woods? These 3 directions deserve attention

Source: decrypt; Compile: Blockchain Knight

It's hard to say we've reached an inflection point for Web3 gaming, the number of active wallets is still smaller than a typical mobile game, let alone a real human player. None of the new games made more money than the earlier P2E titles, and the money was so slashed that it looked like a mistake amidst the AI hype.

However, I am more excited than ever that Web3 games can maintain their status quo and even show growth in such a depressed market.

Virtual reality and cloud gaming haven't taken off yet, and during their trough they never had significant support from major companies, while Web3 gaming has the backing of major companies in the space.

In recent months, we've seen high-profile announcements from AAA publishers like Square Enix, Nexon, and Ubisoft, as well as low-key investments from companies like Take-Two.

Existing and newly formed studios have launched Web3 initiatives, including experienced developers such as CCP, the genius behind EVE Online's in-game economy.

Google Play just released clear guidelines for apps using NFTs. Even EA (Electronic Arts) is tying itself to Web3 with its dotSwoosh partnership program with Nike.

So this is good news, these positive signs suggest that people should keep going and keep building.

While no one has been able to find best practices, and there isn't a single successful large-scale game to follow and emulate, there are enough good practices out there to give developers direction, which is a good thing. In an industry where there are more failures than successes, we need as many tailwinds as possible.

However, time and time again I see developers go the wrong way and ignore the unique opportunities that Web3 has.

1. Build games for a wider audience

A lot of friction comes from developers forgetting about basic player segmentation. In fact, with any free-to-play game, you need to assume that 90%+ of your audience will never spend money in your game. They don't need to own an NFT, but it would be great if they did.

Too many developers expect players to own a large number of Crypto digital assets and NFTs when designing games, and doing so will virtually create obstacles for players to enter the game.

I think there is another way to rephrase this question that will give many Web3 developers a breakout: Stop building games with the expectation that all players will join the game.

Over 90% of players will never spend, and of that less than 10%, it's safe to say the consumer breakdown shows that only about 2%-5% of players care if their game items are on-chain .

All grand plans for secondary market transactions, interoperability, and all the other Web3 tricks you create will be loved by the 2%.

They are as vital a part as the spending players, but the game needs to start from the point of view of 100% spending players and non-consuming players. If you design with this in mind, you'll be better positioned to succeed.

2. Not all games need to be AAA titles

The average development cost of an AAA game is $80 million, and Flappy Bird could be made in three days by just one developer.

Unless you have deep pockets on your hands (and double your marketing dollars), we can save you the frustration of competing with Hearthstone, Call of Duty, and The Legend of Zelda right now.

Focusing on AAA gamers makes a lot of sense when getting started is super hard, and you want that high-value tech-savvy crowd to get through all the hurdles and finally get into your game.

But now, wallets are available via email, NFTs can be purchased with a credit card, casual games unlock massive addressable audiences, faster time-to-market and distribution on any platform.

I'm not denying high-quality, well-polished hardcore games. They're great, they're necessary, and they're coming. However, the average developer is better off grabbing the gaps created by the new seamless technology**.

3. Utilize the unique attributes of Web3 to establish a new mechanism

In EA Sports games, you buy the same players every time. But nothing gamers hate more than someone telling them that the fun they're having is "wrong" and making them feel like a fool for repeating the same "mistake".

So why have we forgotten the amazing new mechanisms that Web3 can bring? We don't seem to pay enough attention to the positive significance of new network technologies.

Between lackluster P2E offerings and triple-A Web2-to-Web3 porting, we forget that on-chain functionality can enable interesting new game design possibilities that few are exploring. These mechanisms have the potential to lead to "viral spread", creating the first Web3 game "killer app".

I recently wrote an article about some of the untapped features developers can make games that only Web3 can do.

How about a game built entirely around on-chain functionality? Or use dynamic NFTs to reduce the impact of items in the game. Maybe the more skin is traded, the dirtier it looks?

Some of these are experimental ideas that may not be acceptable to the casual game audience, and these mechanics may only appeal to a subset of consumer players. But we know that core gamers are willing to go the extra mile for something new and exciting, and the time is ripe for gameplay innovation.

For those critics who think the field is over, we need a reminder: some of the earliest free-to-play games launched in 1999.

For years, developers dismissed them, gamers saw them as money grabs and scams, and governments tried to regulate them. All this happened in the 18 years before Fortnite came out.

Waves in gaming come and go, but Web3 represents one that I believe will be the foundation of some of the greatest games of the future. I think we're starting to see some potential themes that developers can focus on and unlock the next generation of games.