How Web3 Games Work (and Sadly Don't)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 жов 2024
- In this GDC 2022 session, Alliance’s William Robinson explores the failings of some Web3 games-including pyramid schemes, play-to-earn, and NFTs-as well as the ones being built by independent developers and technologists that are not monetized in the same ways.
Head to GDC Vault (www.gdcvault.com) for the latest video-on-demand sessions from GDC 2022-with several GDC videos available to watch for free!
Join the GDC mailing list: www.gdconf.com/...
Follow GDC on Twitter: / official_gdc
GDC talks cover a range of developmental topics including game design, programming, audio, visual arts, business management, production, online games, and much more. We post a fresh GDC video every day. Subscribe to the channel to stay on top of regular updates, and check out GDC Vault for thousands of more in-depth talks from our archives.
55:27 - "[...] otherwise you should make a web2 game and create value just through fun"
one of the best lines in the talk
His analogies were great, but I wish he had just said from the start that the majority of Web3 games aren't games, but financial instruments masquerading as games.
His example of a user-generated game in web3 was cool. Until you realize that it can get out of hand pretty bad and turned into a scam in a minute. :v
@@avery_IO there's a difference oh them being a financial instruments as a goal and the fact that they are financial instruments as a consequence of the work put into it.
Just like:
1 - I wanna make games for the money.
2 - I wanna make games because i love the craft. And i **also** get paid for it.
Two different things. Even tho they seem similar.
@@LoboGuarah Problem is that as of right now, no web3 'project' is a game made because they love the craft. If they loved the craft, they wouldn't attempt to lie to consumers of their products, telling them the technology they're using is brand new, that their ideas are brand new.
A good example is that dumb 'digital influencer', Polar. She was created by the same company of 5-minute Crafts. They're like 'oh, she did a concert digitally and wants to do a real concert and isn't this awesome and new web3 metaverse keyword keyword?!' But v-tubers have been around for a while. Hatsune Miku has been around a VERY long time. None of the elements used for her are new, and she's so poorly animated, it's not even funny. Hell, AI Angel here on youtube is one of the best ones right now.
It's INSANE. They act like buying digital land or holding digital concerts is new, that anything they're doing is revolutionary. VR Chat has been doing these this for a long time, too.
They lie to people who don't know any better, creating a cultish mindset. It creates people who will go and yell on the videos of people who did it first, thinking THEY copied the web3 nonsense.
@@nachgeben i'm with you the whole way, bud. I hate this shit the same as you. Was just explaning something to DJ.
This whole web3, metaverse bullshit has been tried to be done multiple times and it's always the same shit.
he did
Countdown until comments are turned off...
Didn't take long for a shill to show up, unfortunately.
@@MoonlitWood Anyone who knows enough about Web 3 to make a presentation and NOT just haul off and call it out as the money-laundering scam it is is part of the problem. So really, the shill was at minute 0.
@@jansenart0 Eh, that's debatable I think. Shutting people down without confronting these people just reinforces their beliefs. Some of them might not be willing to listen to reason, but you have to try.
Edit: That being said, I see from other comments that this guy is trying to play both sides, in which case yeah, that's gross.
"sadly"?
Happily
Bro legit comes out and calls crypto and web3 a scam 97 percent of the time
And don't forget, those odds are even worse for web3 games!
You understand how many internet companies were scams in the dotcom crash of the late ninties? Almost 100%.
I don't understand why GDC keeps promoting these talks.
Dude starts the talk saying all the anti-crypto talking points, but then continues to try and sell the audience on the future "web3" (a term which has no formalized definition). I kept watching because it wasn't immediately obvious whether the speaking was bashing or promoting crypto.
The speaker isn't a game developer. Or a publisher. Or a community manager.
They're a finance bro. Alliance is accelerator for crypto projects. They want more people to play to earn, but seem to forget that people play to have fun.
lol My take away from the amount I watched is that this guy is trying to spread his Political Ideaology through a game talk... Everything seems to be bashing right wing politics. Can't even watch a fucking Game Development talk without hearing my politics are the enemy and evil. It's completely pathetic.
@@UnityMMODevelopers ???
@@GC-jm9bt Check 8:18 and onwards
@@Biru_to holy shit there are so many idiots here in the comments. 8:18 your time mark, he starts talking about what that book wrote about cypherpunks, then adds his remarks beginning at 8:33. Did you watch until 8:33 onward or your brain shut off by reading "right wing" on screen?
While I do not like Web3 in gaming, I do appreciate how this talk was presented with a neutral tone. Most of the videos I have seen on play2earn or other applications of blockchains in gaming are straight-up promo pieces proclaiming that Web3 is the future and we should all just get used to it. This is not that. I urge people to watch the talk before jumping to conclusions as to the motives of the speaker.
This wasn't a neutral talk, he started slamming crypto bc he knows no one will take him seriously given his biased background, halfway thru the video and his tone changes for the best with crypto and towards the very end be slaps you with the "btw I work for a Web3 accelerator company" we are not dumb, we get the victim card play. It all boils down to:
1. Crypto is hard AF
2. There's a promise of riches
3. Get into my accelerator program (yet another new intermediary added to publishers)
Thank god NFTs are dying
I feel like being a dude who "works to accelerate crypto/web3 gaming startups" should be disclosed way earlier in a talk supposedly about harms of web3 crypto games.
And certainly before sliding into full-on NFT shilling.
way earlier than 0:44 ?
What NFT shilling? He was pretty clear: This stuff is useless beyond social status in some groups. A lot of stuff people use as arguments are fake and most game just function as a way to capture people to use their network as bank/broker.
If you left from this talk thinking "I'll spend a lot of money in NFT" you are either thinking about entering the medium to develop stuff, avoid taxes or didn't understand anything.
Did we watch the same talk? Basically all he did was reiterate that crypto/nft/web3 games are pyramid schemes.
My man literally compared P2P sex with crypto
I thought it was accurate.
He just says mind your risks, don't be a dreamy gambler and market is always right.
I dunno, I guess I just don't really get the point. So much of the talk is just about the history of crypto and its philosophy and not about how I can use it to make something interesting and rewarding for my playerbase
Because you can't. It's not for the players, it's for the maker. Either via user acquisition, or value distribution.
Imagine the fun and excitement of having a boss who demands overtime and greater production, but in a game!
You are correct - it is up to us now to figure out what to do with that tech. Free 2 play formula evolved to it's viable and then dominant form eventually and it took a decade+ of a hard work of the brightest minds of the industry and still live ops for most studios is a monster to slay. The web3 idea is in its' very childhood and no one can tell what exactly to do. But sharing pitfalls (like William does) is helping a lot.
37:50 I'd also argue (not endorsing pvt blockchains as such), that a decentralized DB is one utility of the blockchain, but even if it was private, the immutability of the database is probably an advantage over traditional databases, whatever the usecase maybe.
As the blockchain gaming market surges, Aelevate by aelf is a practical response. It's not just about funding but also about nurturing innovation. The gaming landscape is evolving, and Aelevate is paving the way.
oh no, not you GDC
Ya shoulda see how many stands were about nfts this year.
I once believed that GDC can have no bad talk, well i guess i'm wrong
Man, I'm really sorry.
@GDC, are you okay? You seem to be listening to non-game-developer's $$$ instead of listening to game developers. You might want to sit down and have a talk with the person who scheduled this talk.
In case my stance wasn't clear: "Web3" and crypto is all an inefficient waste of everyone resources: time and money. Seriously, if you are game developer, then stick to web2 game. If you are a crypto bro aspiring to find a greater fool, then please stay away from games.
If you grew up on games from the 1990s on you would get it, but instead all we get in GDC is indie devs trying to recreate the top kek that is the indie movie scene LOL
Real gamers want real games, give me PvP and loot boxes you walking simulator sympathizer.
GDC can win if they KEEP TAKING non-game-developer's $$$, games are for players not game developers. Why would they follow devs???
Indie is so toxic glad I bounced on it. Now I can iterate on real innovate game design instead of making indie games based around made up social drama like you all.
@@billcross2432 I agree with you on the part where crypto, NFTs, and all things web3 is bad for everything.
@@billcross2432 Yeah, I'm just gonna go right ahead and stick to games which are fun and fulfilling, rather than hypercapitalistic nightmares designed to dry out your wallets by preying on people's social insecurity and FOMO.
If indie games are what you consider 'toxic', compared to this? I don't think we can agree on anything.
@@billcross2432 Man no disrespect but I feel you directed a lot of pent up frustration on the wrong guy
@@tridra5714 I would say the same think, he click in the video with a idea about what the guy would say and didnt like it because wasnt what he aspected, bro, a kiddo is more mature...
The only thing I think blockchain can be useful for in games is archival game historian purposes (though likley only for really old or VERY small modern games) and using it as a permanent (though tor networked for safety) peer to peer registry for ever greening some kinds of multiplayer.
So much for "decentralization" and "ownership" when at the very end you have to join his accelerator/investment program to have people help you with smart contracts and NFTs for a sure fire chance to f* up your audience. Yet another intermediary added to publishers looking for a cut of a game's rev smh ...
Hey friend, our accelerator is free and investment is optional. We have limited time and so we cannot help everyone. We have never helped anyone create smart contracts to launch NFTs. Not once.
[this got long, sorry. TLDR everything awful about NFTs weighs out any little good in them]
I don't mind it when games grow and change in style, i really don't. From a design perspective it means we can make new things rather than copying a formula over and over. However, I'm really sad if this is where large gaming groups want to take games. I know most indie developers hate this but i can't help but notice large studios or groups really want to push NFTs. They don't add much to games for me. sure they could be used for special skins but the added idea that there's this huge market, a way to earn lots of money (or you can lose money), and the idea that a game should earn and give ruins a lot of value games have.
Some games in the past do earn a lot of money. CSGo is an example with how skins are sold on steam. I think things like that are okay (though they hold their own issues), since its not necessary to play the game. you can ignore it entirely if you do not care for or do not want to support gambling on skins. I don't think the original devs even planned for it to take off like it did initially. But basing your game around that to some degree takes away something important, the entertainment value.
A game can be a lot of things. It can tell a personal story, it can be sad, happy, it can have basically no story at all and have great game-play, but at the end of the day it should be fun to sit there and play it. Playing a game to earn CAN have some entertainment value but its more about the adrenaline rush. the story can be any shlog you want as long as you're still earning. what pushes gave devs to make a game better if they are earning a lot from their users as well. (we can also see that a bit with non-skin lootboxes. why add fun items to a game when you can make people pay or play huge amounts of hours for them). NFTs lean too far into ruining what makes a game fun. if you're not the one with the NFT worth money then your goal is either to play more until you do or give up, it leans into the idea that users can earn but they also see their user base as a huge cash inflow, which is something that's already a bit toxic in web2 games with lootboxes, overpriced DLC (some are fine tho), micro-transactions, expecting customers to buy incomplete products until they fix it, or flat out lying about that their game is going to be before selling it. I don't want those ideas to propagate more than they already have. I think there can be a healthy balance between game designers and developers wanting to make money but also giving out a quality game that doesn't expect people to hand out large amounts of cash over and over again. game designers and customers should respect each other. (Yes i know a userbase for this exists, but usually they grow bitter when an NFT project fails rather than the game itself being bad, so its a bit of a weird situation. either way, i think people playing these games are lead onto false promises of being rich, as long as they pay to earn, which i find toxic)
one last note, i do think there are good ways for designers and devs to add in ways to make money, but i don't think this is one of them. at best its gambling and at worst the game designers know most of their users won't make money and abuse that however they can.
@@GwyndolinOwO The only thing I can think of is for Identity. Like VR chat where you pay for an avatar artist to create your face, where that face is linked directly to your online identity so that no one can copy it. . . even though it wouldn't be hard to copy it.
@@Hadeks_Marow yeah thats my thought, though, i have to believe that there is some way to make code not on the blockchain that gives a single user on a game a certain skin. I don't know what that would look like but that could be interesting since it wouldn't "HAVE" to be tied to a certain market or be bought with currency.
@@GwyndolinOwO I mean, that depends on who is making it. If it's user generated content (like VR chat as stated before), there is nothing to stop duplicators from uploading a copy of that skin (like phony merch sold on amazon that is a cheap knockoff of the actual thing). However, if it's developer implemented, the developer can lock that content off from everyone unless their gamer ID matches a certain user. If users can't upload, then no one can copy other than the person who put it out there originally: the developer.
Neither one of these examples though would need blockchain. The only useful aspect of the blockchain at that point is brand value. To take on the mantle that someone else passes on. Sorta like if robin became the new batman. In this case, the blockchain would be used to "confirm" that the mantle has officially been passed. Like if your favorite youtuber dies and gets replaced with a new host, the channel would indicate that they are the new face for the channel.
I compare it more to Captain America, how falcon took over that mantle. That is the BEST use-case I can imagine for it. . . and even then, it's just a "proof" of identity rather than it is to actually "bind" an identity to an individual. Account IDs are still just better proof in general though while also do the job of actually binding identity to and individual.
It isn't about getting rich. It is about owning the assets we play and pay for and not getting banned for selling them.
You literally said that playing a game to earn ruins a lot of value games have and said that CSGO is how skins are sold in a game proving that it ADDS value to the game, not ruining it. The people selling skins for real currency are violating the TOS for RMT and could get banned and their whole steam library taken from them.
"Sadly", I am not sure who I am more disgusted by. The FINANCE guy, who has nothing to do with game development in a conference literally called the game Game DEVELOPERS Conference. . . . or GDC for even hosting a finance guy in the first place. He is not a publisher. He offers almost nothing in the perspective of "developing" games. GDC is a joke for even humoring this in the first place, but even more so an insult to developers for encouraging it with titles like that.
Informa PLC needs to fix their brand image, cause this is just upsetting and makes the company look bad and incompetent. Hosting this was just unethical and unprofessional to the GDC brand. I really do hope this causes internal restructuring of the company, cause this never should have made it past the screening process.
Part of game design is the business model. This was a completely reasonable talk about business model and design. Instead of whining about credentials, tell us where you disagree on the content. The talk seemed mature and informative, but you may just be the wrong audience.
@@GreenManorite Design and development are different aspects. And even then, he is JUST finance, he does not influence design. If you want to understand farther, read any one else's comments discussing his non-background and lack of involvement in the developing process.
@@Hadeks_Marow Agreed that it was not a developer talk. Reality is that developers make design decisions all the time and having a holistic view makes you a better developer. If you're developing a NFT oriented game, understanding what creates value seems important.
@@GreenManorite Except. . . no creator, no developer, no consumer, no one values this. . . soooo. . . and even then, that's not even what he does. You are AGRESSIVELY misrepresenting and over-exaggerating what his role actually is. This guy does not, I repeat DOES NOT provide feedback to any teams what-so-ever in regards to developmental direction. He is not hired under consultant fees, he is STRICTLY financial aid who can't even legally define himself as a financial adviser nor expert.
I take it you didn't even watch the talk, if you did, you'd be able to count how many times he talked about "dodging regulations" and "pyramid schemes" stuff that is normally illegal anywhere in the world. Do you REALLY think a respectable brand should be endorsing people using underhanded means to dodge what would otherwise be illegal literally anywhere in the world?
As far as a developer convention goes: This is the equivalent of talking to the receptionist at a therapist office/building to learn how to be a therapist. That position is needed for therapy to work, but they just aren't involved with the topic relevancy even remotely so. Meaning any information they provide is just hot air and blowing smoke. And that's not even discussing all the shady points he brought up about using it as a means to "dodge regulation". . . which exists to PROTECT CONSUMERS!
I once worked for a guy, about 5 years ago, who was making what today would be called an NFT game... only he wasn't, and he scammed me out of a month of hard work. I have very bitter feelings about blockchain now.
"Sadly"?
Because people that are developing the web3 games do not have enough knowledge working with web3 and have approached the development in the wrong approach although it does have real possibilties. Although it for sure the approach but I can convince that it is possible to do and how it can be done is for example.
If you then have block chain only to handle the management of game account accesser, in game items can be sold in game but are seperate system from the block chain although block chain items can exist aswell. Players choiced to block chain at a cost potentially rare items and items that other players would desire. Although they then must have a store in game in which to be able to display sale and make sale of there NFT'd items these items can also be development Special perhaps set amount of launch day items etc
And the line must go up...
The major cope with these talks is that everything they mentioned here can just be done on the current web. Web3 is a astroturfed concept techbros won't let go of because they so badly want an internet where you can be charged just for sharing a .jpg.
The talk specifically has a segment on what can be done uniquely on blockchain.
> web3
>nfт
Ah, so, in other words, garbage and unethical practices worse than lootboxes?
What makes it funnier from this panel is the panel was from 4 months ago where the hype from eneftee game pretty big because of the nft community started hyping it to death "play to earn" bullshit and now the so called web3 gaming are basically dead, barely heard of it in gaming discourse
I don't get what the speaker's goal was. Was he bashing crypto or shilling it? There were so many negative terms used lol. Ponzi, criminal, bitcoin as a devil... wtf? I'm at 20mins of the vid and I still don't know the correlation about web3 games. :(
This is very political and misleading to your whole audience.
All of us who got here to learn about game design will find this deeply unprofessional.
Seriously, GDC, what are you thinking?
How is this better than Patreon or Twitch? What does this have to do with game development?
Do they take a cut? If so this is better.
Do you want to avoid using steam for a store API? Blockchain got that easy
Web3 deez nuts
15 min and it still feels like propaganda, only now it seems to be religious propaganda
It kinda reminds me of when the:
Printing press came out. Everyones gonna share dirty ideas!
Computer came out: Its just gonna create nerds who sit in front of screens!
Internet came out: Everyones just gonna be sharing porn and having webcam sex!
and so on....
You cant go backwards in technology;
Technology doesnt care about your feelings.
i give u 2 names ( David Georgeson )&( Jeffrey Butler ) they made some of the best MMOs games in all of history & they r in the black boxes woking on web3 game stuff🖖🤓 research em & be ready
I like this man he’s smart I finally get this lol
here for the ratio
Delete this and ban this man from ever joining GDC ever again.
What ever happened to "developers" at the Gaming Development Conference. I will allow publishers and people who aid with development like musicians. . . but this guy is literally just a finance guy working for a financial company. He doesn't touch the game, doesn't send them talent who will touch the game. He's literally JUST finance.
From Nov 1 2021 to Feb 1 2023 axia infinity is down only 94% that is a store of value.
My take away: Ultimately, Web3 game design isn't about "making more money" but that the profits being made are distributed more fairly and that the content being made is by the community itself.
Here's how: Web3 games build community through the promise of real-world profit to players. Once community has grown beyond reasonable profit margins, the players need to be convinced to simply play the game for it's entertainment value (which is the same model of a Web2 game design). So, Web3 game design is only logical in an open-source game where the players independently decide to invest in its contributors. Potential for profit eventually switches from the players to the makers. The community decides what is deserving of profit within the game (ex: rare weapons, desirable clothing, UI skin, new play features). At this point, the player loses money but they're okay with it because they're paying for something they enjoy, directly to the people that are helping them to enjoy it.
The game turns no (or little) profit initially, but the developers can plan ahead for other avenues of income, such as selling tickets to limited events in the game. Much like a real-world sports event or music concert, the scarcity of the seating is what makes the ticket prices rise. We're paying for an experience instead of a good or service and the popularity of the experience reflects the supposed greatness of it, making it more valuable. This is exactly what is meant by "decentralization". We decide value as a community instead of a single corporate entity telling us what has value. **There are pros and cons to this of course.
When you purchase a dance in Fortnite, Epic Games gets the money and the developers each just continue to receive their fixed salaries. Now, imagine that dance animation has all the names of the animator, creative director, motion-capture actor, etc. listed next to it and when you make that purchase, it is publicly known (through smart contract/blockchain) that they are directly paid and credited. Wouldn't you feel better about buying such things? This empowers, inspires and incentivizes makers.
I think the speaker is too specialized in his work to clearly communicate his point to the average audience, but the other comments here seem dismissive and unfair. He is very educated and well spoken. I think Web3 needs more talks like this before we're able to determine its healthy use cases.
I think you make good points overall, but some of the logic you are applying is flawed:
- Players' initial motivation is to make some profit (and supposedly, have some fun). Expecting from them to remove that motivation and remain just with the "fun" is naive, at best. If you start playing a game AND then you get a chance to win some money (for example becoming a pro-player), that's a whole different thing. You are adding, not removing motivation.
- Real-world sports events and concerts have REAL scarcity, because stadiums have a limited size. You are proposing to create a fake scarcity just for the sake of earning more money, which is completely contrary to an open-source, decentralised system.
- I agree that it would be nice to know every name of every people involved on every little aspect of the game and paid them accordingly, but it's unfeasible. How would you exactly define the percentage each individual will receive? Wouldn't that mean that, for example, the director will receive a percentage of every transaction? How would you define the exact involvement of that individual on every little aspect of the game? And yeah, receiving a fixed salary is also a way of getting paid.
- Finally, to address your take away. What makes you think that profits are being distributed more fairly? How would you define a fair distribution? If it's because players are being paid to play, that's just a side-hustle of sorts, which doesn't make the distribution fair by itself. It's because individual creators are being paid for their work even after leaving the company? Well, fair point, but applies mostly to music/art assets. How would you ensure that people who created the base game get their share too? What about game designers, coders, producers who don't directly create a Fortnite dance for example, but who created all the base game, which is the core of the whole thing? And content created by the community is a double-edged sword. There is a reason why VR Chat disabled ALL the mods. There's a reason why game content is carefully curated by experienced people in the context of a company. Opening your game to community created content is opening a Pandora's box. You'll see the best from people, but you'll see the worst also for sure, and a few rotten apples can completely destroy your game and you community, which is a problem that, thus far, has been impossible to address not only in gaming, but on the internet, and why not to say it, in the real-world too.
@@GameDesignThinking Thanks for the response! I think discussion is the most important contribution to Web3 right now.
And sorry, maybe I miscommunicated. I completely agree with everything you said. I'm not saying any of my points are "feasible" adoptions for the future of gaming, I was just trying to process the speakers points: Web3 only seems beneficial for open-source projects, and you're right, there would be a lot of terrible contributions from those "bad apples" in the world, but that's the risk associated with freedom (however you wish to define it), and I think that's the point of decentralization: taking control, for better or worse. When it comes to fair pay, Fortnite may have been a bad example to use since it's not open-source. In an open-source game, if we pay contributors directly then they would determine who it is divided amongst upon uploading their features via smart contract. But since the initial creators, director, etc. wouldn't be profiting from any of these transactions, that's why they would need to preemptively come up with a secondary focus/ primary revenue stream (which is also what the speaker was describing when he said web3 games are loss-leaders). Building false scarcity seems contradicting to an "open-source" concept, but isn't the entire premise of trade currency built on false scarcity? Especially in the digital realm. All we need to sustain life is protection from the elements, nutritional sustenance, and procreation. The world has enough space to live in, food to be distributed, and people to mate with. All of our scarcity issues are self-inflicted. It's pretty minor to create false scarcity in the way of entertainment if it's to supplement creators, especially if they're transparent about it. They can just call their limited event "Founders Festival" or something fun 😆
I would like to stress that the whole talk he is NOT talking about games he is talking about financial instruments and decentralized banking. He is looking at the space of decentralized ledger systems through a very very narrow and negatively tinted lense. And also some statements he made such like, that blockchains if they're not open, public, and transparent make no sense....Is simply objectively wrong. There is a gigantic value and sense in closed, private, opaque blockchains (e.g. Supply-chain management, autonomous mobility, e-mobility, energy sector, governmental systems, etc.). I would like to stress this point because what is missing in this talk is objectivity. This talk is about decentralized finance and about finance people doing the exact same things they do in the stock market and in gambling/casinos but in a yet unregulated space. So it is the same situation as in the early days of stock markets where those were unregulated and a lot of people were burned and there were more scams than honest actors in the stock market. Sorry for the rant I wouldn't have any problem with this talk if it was called something in the direction of: " beware of financial schemes disguised as games in web3". It would be great if GDC could fact check the talks a tiny little bit and help those talkers to improve on their talks before they have someone talk about something and then upload it to a gigantic communty, confusing and scaring the community instead of informing it.
I like that there are people who both know crypto and are fully honest about it. He doesn't deny the existence of scammers and malicious entities but he also doesn't use that to define web3 in it's entirety.
We live in capitalism. So anything that happens has to be passed through that. It incentivizes people with the most resources to take advantage of the new thing. The nature of the game of capital reveals itself. I feel like web3 gets a bad rap when it has nothing to do with the problem. It's just a tool that people are using for the game
GDC, why should I listen to a Biz-Boy like William Robinson trying to create virtual (nonexistent) unregulated commodities markets. We're here to talk about Game Development, not Scam Development. Drop the Web3 Bros from invited talks. They've had a decade to prove the value, and their only serious "success" (Axie Infinity) has finally collapsed almost exactly on predicted schedule.
Web3 brings nothing of value to Game Development or Design. More broadly Web3 brings no value to any kind of Art, including games. Let's put a fork in that point and move on.
Do you still think so?
@@joaofranciscoguarda
Lets see how Web3 is doing 7 months later.... Yep, still a stack of collapsing scams, attempting to "solve" already solved problems in the Arts and Video Games.
Axie Infinity Shards are still in the toilet after plummeting. Even if it's not technically dead dead, may as well put it on the cart and whack it on the head.
Other projects have either been abandoned, failed to produce "value" for "investors", or turned out to be... wait for it... complete scams.
qorpo.world/register/Tosta
How can a man say so much yet say nothing?
> Gives a historical and technical rundown of Crypto, warts and all
> Bill Nye: "says nothing"
???
@@thehappyfaceofhalo thanks for listening. I really wanted to give a lot of context because it is a very complicated space and the history informs the motivations and directions it takes.
Great analysis of web3
So essentially, this is not the promise of Web3! What happened is that there is still a chance to create the REAL WEB3.
Thanks to the speaker! I always wanted to indulge in the development of these technologies but I'm hesitant because rn, it feels a lot like this is still Web2, fully centralized, just using the term "web 3".
Thank you to the lady who asked the question with a great insight about how facebook and amazon makes their money and essentially, it pointed out that there is a high chance of creating a REAL WEB3 Application or game! We just have to figure out a way to make that business model beyond the game itself; thus making it sustainable and within the reach of regulatory governance!
That's really not the best explanation of crypto as a whole - better don't watch this in the first place, so misleading
Hey! I'd love some actionable feedback . Which parts were wrong or misleading?
@@willrobinson3792 you literally said bitcoin was designed for criminal use, "did exactly what it was designed to do [...] by funding terrorists" - the most actionable advice I can give you is reduce the history lesson part which you're doing a bad job at, and instead introduce crypto (including bitcoin) as what it is: infrastructure, a decentralised network of computers working hard to come to consensus (agree) on some state(-change). It's complementary to traditional infrastructure like the visa payment system, wire transfers or AWS-based database systems in games, and that's the picture you should try to build when explaining it to someone who has only ever heard of "coins" or "tokens"
Also take Joseph Cocos advice to heart: "I wish he had just said from the start that the majority of Web3 games aren't games, but financial instruments masquerading as games"
@@larsfroelich hmm, I think you are missing a big piece of what I was saying. Bitcoin was designed to be criminal, but in a good way. It was designed to fight the state's power over monetary policy by creating a censorship resistant payment infrastructure. So you are right that it is infrastructure, but it is not meant to complement tradfi. That was something that Fintech people reimagined for it years later. You can learn more about Bitcoin by searching with the keyword "cypherpunk" or by reading "What was Bitcoin, what will it be? The techno-economic imaginaries of a new money technology".
I like how he try to defend "true ownership" by saying that a skin still have value if the game close.
I've got a Harvest Moon SNES game that's worth 400$, trust me they don't want it to buy it to play it.
It's called collecting and some of us just like to collect things.
I wish my first WoW toon was on the blockchain so I could query it and show off my gear and stats but I've been rugged by Blizzard.
Bro, you made me rewatch my entire talk, because I hold the opposite opinion and figured I mispoke. But no, I literally attacked the idea of "true ownership" and with a pretty disgusted face said "theeeeeeortically there is value and value capture there"...
@@DangerWillRobin Sorry I may have been severe in my comment. Indeed you did.
I worked on 2 NFT games on the past and let's say that what I have seen was enough to get discussed by the subjects.
Well how can a product generate in income for Dev's and also the players in a sustainable manner?
Well, it should be play to earn only for the gaming audience. The capital should be brought in by whales and liquidity by traders.
CropBytes does that.
lil bro joined axie when it was already very popular and spent a thousand foken dollars on ripoff pokemon, you can imagine the rest
rekt but u could 160X ur money less than a year if u bought their token at 0.1 and sell it at 160..
@@4mIlr Yeah but the vast majority of buyers doesn't, right? By design. Web3 kinda needs a constant supply of clueless lil bros pumping money into it so you guys can play stock market with pokemons
@@4mIlr Sure you can make a lot of money by participating in crypto scams, but you're much more likely to get rugged instead. A the end of the day crypto is just legally dubious gambling for nerds. And just like with regular gambling, the house always wins.
Love how he says there are literally no blockchain transactions that cost less than 2 cents....
Then says his favorite Game is Dark Forest which is run on Gnosis chain where transactions are commonly tenths or even Hundredths of a PENNY.
It's the reason the game is able to run "Parallel Transactions" and why it has such a rabid fan base. Is because it's wickedly cheap to play.
Those are not running on the blockchain. Probably happening on a Layer2 and then sent to the blockchain as a bundle which is still one transaction for many many pennies.
no thanks
Yeah, Skyrim was made by people that bought it. Sure.
ua-cam.com/users/clipUgkxadx3gLomvzlxiJXOS8lLKtambVPgeY5l The moment everything went off the rails
Play to earn is future of gaming
Its time to players make money
and for newcomers, play2earn is like what youtube do, u make vid for youtube, u create value and youtube pays u with ads and share the income, now its time to for game industry
I see you haven't even bothered watching the vid lol
It's time for ppl to stop having fun and worry only about money!!
man, it's so stupid. it literally the idea "i wanna do nothing and get money for it". It's like wanting to get paid by watching anime
I hope you like 13 or so, because this idea is so childish and naive
I can not believe this is not a troll comment.
@@Frosted_Moontips Im crypto advisor and this vid was for rookie ppl