When NFT games and "Metaverse" are in the air, are practitioners in the traditional game circle envious? How do they view the current wave of blockchain games and the "Metaverse"? In response to these problems, Chain Catcher recently interviewed two employees of a major game manufacturer and an Internet game entrepreneur to hear their views on NFT and chain games.

From a professional point of view, both employees of two major game manufacturers questioned the playability of the current blockchain games. At the same time, some interviewees agree that NFT may bring players a more open gaming experience. The three interviewees also questioned the sustainability of "Play to Earn" as a game business model, but an entrepreneur also said that "if you look at it as an economic system, it may be established."

At present, how do major domestic game manufacturers pay attention to and take action on the hot concept of "Metaverse"? The interviewees also gave some answers for readers' reference.

Oral Oral | Chen Hao, Gao Rui, Jeff

first level title

01

Jeff (CEO of a game start-up company)

• Product Type: Virtual Social Mobile Games

• Crypto contact degree: played chain games

Look at "Play to Earn": If you look at it as a game, it will definitely crash; if you look at it as an economic system, it may be established

The matter of "play to earn" is actually the same as doing CryptoKitties-when the top people earn more and more money, the supply and demand become larger and larger, but the demand becomes less and less, and the threshold becomes higher and higher , at a certain critical point, it is likely to collapse, just like Cryptokitties collapsed soon.Because of the last stick, I couldn't hand it over.

But Axie Infinity has given me some new ideas: the big difference between it and cryptokitties is that its ecology has become very different. There are not only those who make gold, but also those who move bricks, and there are intermediate ones for everyone to do. For information exchange, there are various guild organizations, and then there are big bosses participating.

Someone in the industry told me,Play to earn is actually "gamifying" many jobs, many economic scenarios, and economic models in reality.

Therefore, if you regard it as a "game" to look at its income and future, it must have a big problem, and there will definitely be a situation where the drum is passed and no one takes the last stick, and the entire product will collapse. But if you look at it as an "economic society", that is, there will be people who have been working part-time to earn this hard money, and some people will buy all kinds of luxury goods, and then pursue a higher status, to show off, to show off etc.

So if it is an economic system, but it is covered with a layer of (game) skin, then this thing may work.But if it is regarded as a game, it is covered with a layer of blockchain skin, but I think it must not work. Because the game does this, the economic system must collapse in the end.

The key to sustainability lies in the infinity of ecology and gameplay

If this thing can be made into an "infinite game" - endless, you will feel that more and more people are coming in, or its ecology and gameplay are becoming more and more abundant. There can be public chains in it, and even some DeFi things. , if it becomes an "infinite game", no one will actually cheat.

Just like in our reality, life is actually equivalent to an infinite game, so most people are still reluctant to cheat openly. So I think it depends on how it finally builds this ecology and products.

The value and assets in it must not be limited to the display or battle of the game, I think it must have other attributes. For example, if you buy a car in reality, it is not just for showing off, it also has the function of transportation.

If it is to speculate on this bag, this car, and then speculate a car worth 100,000 yuan to 100 million yuan, that is okay, but it must not last, so it must give it utility. If it is endowed with utility, the disadvantages and negative characteristics of ecology will be diluted.

That is to say, when the economic system is perfect enough, you can buy a bag for several million, buy a car for tens of millions, and irrational things will be diluted to the point that everyone can accept it. Ten thousand transactions, transactions, and pledges.

Believe that "Play to Earn" is a paradigm shift in the game industry

I agree ("Play to Earn" is a paradigm shift in the game industry), but not so optimistic. I believe in these things in the currency circle today, but I am not so optimistic, including NFT, GameFi and Play to Earn.

The biggest innovation of the blockchain in recent years is actually DEX, but you find that these innovations are actually based on the financial field and transactions.

But I think whether it’s the real world or the Metaverse, you need to attract more people, and you need to allow everyone to participate with a relatively low threshold, and you only need to pay a small amount of time and money. In fact, 99% of the people in this world are not suitable for trading, and most people are not suitable, so if most people can participate in the construction of this new economy, web3. I think NFT and GameFi, including many other things, are very valuable. But at present, I am still pessimistic in the short term, but I believe in the long term.

The company will definitely try something in the chain game field in the future, but not in the near future

first level title

02

Gao Rui (an employee of one of the top three game manufacturers in China)

• Position: Technology

• Crypto Exposure: Concerned about Blockchain, but skeptical about Crypto’s value support

The chain game premium lacks actual support, and the bubble is large

I haven't had a deep understanding of some NFT games. According to my understanding, it is still a form of selling a unique token. It’s hard to say how good its (Axie Infinity) gameplay is at the moment, but at least its overflow is very high. It’s hard for me to imagine that it’s because of the quality of the game, the art cost invested, or the good entertainment experience it brings to players. and achieve this income. At present, from my perspective, chain games themselves are still relatively big bubbles.

I think my pessimistic thoughts about NFT should be the concerns of the mainstream group who make games now:One is the policy, the other is the monotonous gameplay, and the third is that the bottom layer (value) of NFT is not supported.

The current chain games may not be called "games"

The game is an entertainment service industry, and in essence, it still needs to bring some entertainment and services to people. If you're playing this game to make money, it probably can't be called a "game". It can even be said that these people are working for game companies.

Axie is popular, then I believe that there will be countless games made with this concept in the future. You say that your virtual product is valuable in your game, and he says his value in his game. In fact, in the end, it will be infinitely diluted.

Like traditional power leveling and scarce resource studios, they are actually done as the game changes. For example, in the first two years, the power leveling of LOL and Dota might be the most popular, but in the past two years, it may become the glory of the king, right?

Because it sells scarcity and uniqueness. But scarcity and uniqueness, in addition to the concept of NFT, it needs more work to do, andIt’s no more difficult than making a traditional best-selling mobile gameLow.

At present, the domestic industry’s policy of trying blockchain games is relatively risky, and it is especially impossible for large companies

Not only recently, as far as I know, in fact, like when CryptoKitties came out, many major manufacturers may want to do some gameplay based on blockchain transactions or even NFT, and many major manufacturers must have researched it. But from then to now, the state has been supervising blockchain-related industries. I personally think that the possibility of investing in large domestic manufacturers is not high, unless the risks in this area are reduced.

Companies registered overseas or start-up companies whose teams have overseas study background want to do this. I think the possibility is quite high.

At present, major domestic manufacturers are more concerned about the "Metaverse" as technical reserves

The bottom-level value of "Metaverse" is essentially related to the front-end experience that game manufacturers can provide. Its core is still similar to traditional game planning and art, AI, NFT, blockchain, engine, cloud computing, 5G, AR, these are actually just components.

In fact, there are more big factories now, all of which are laying the foundation and making technical reserves. For example, there are cloud games, edge computing, integration of operating resources, and VR games. Although there is a lot of buzz and everyone will discuss it, I feel that no major manufacturer is willing to make a complete product yet.

first level title

03

Chen Hao (an employee of one of the top five game manufacturers in China)

• Position: Operations

• Crypto contact degree: experience in cryptocurrency investment

The essence of the user is not to play that game, but to obtain that token

I learned about the concept of blockchain through the stock market, and gradually started playing with coins. Later, after the development of the blockchain, the concept of "blockchain games" was derived. I also make games, so I have a general understanding.

The high income of Axie Infinity is mainly due to the increase of its corresponding virtual currency in the secondary market, which will bring income, and more is not brought by the game itself.

The chain games at this stage are actually very simple. I would not play this kind of game at all, it is too low. The essence of the user is not to play that game, but to obtain that token. This game has formed a small ecology. This token has been recognized by everyone in this ecology. This game is more interesting. You can go to this game to play.

Recognizing that blockchain can bring social and openness to games

Virtual world players have three demands: social interaction, openness, and gaming experience. In normal mobile games now, Tencent (players) can only play with Tencent users, and NetEase (players) can only play with NetEase. The same goes for server limitations. Virtual world players still attach great importance to this aspect (openness).

At present, the company is discussing and participating in the construction of the "Metaverse": VR, AR and cloud games

At our company level, we rarely talk about blockchain games, but now we talk more about cloud games and VR games.

We often talk about the Metaverse, but it's more of a conceptual thing. Because we believe that there must be AR and VR before the "Metaverse" is involved.

Our company has been paying attention to AR and VR for a long time. Because we always believe that if there is a major disruption in the game industry, there must be changes in smart devices, that is, terminals, such as from computers to mobile phones, including the game consoles played before. Now that mobile phones are so developed, we believe that the next generation of terminals will be wearable smart devices such as VR and AR, so we are still laying out this area, and we are more exploring how to combine VR and games with offline scenes.

* At the request of the interviewees, Chen Hao and Gao Rui are pseudonyms.