Since Facebook changed its name to META and a group of Internet giants jumped in, it is no doubt that the metaverse has become a global trend. But to link such a brand-new virtual economy, decentralized blockchain games are undoubtedly the best testing ground.
Therefore, Chain Games will not be thrown into the trash can of history forever, but need to move forward in another way, that is to say, the future Chain Games will definitely be reborn, opening a new era with GameFi2.0, It has become a key milestone in the landing of the Metaverse, and top games that are comparable to, or even surpass, Warcraft, World of Warcraft, Honor of Kings, and Fantasy Westward Journey have emerged.
120X gain? I think there will be an additional 0 at the end.
So, what is GameFi2.0?
As early as when discussing the era of GameFi 1.0, I actually proposed different models of chain games vs traditional games.
In principle, the "P2E" model is not unique to Chain Games, but something that has been around since the era of traditional games. For example, gold-playing studios active in traditional games acquire game tokens by playing games and then trade them in the secondary market, which is a very typical "P2E".
However, driven by the blockchain, the "P2E" mastered by a few people has begun to face all gamers. In a sense, this evolution is the same as the emergence of AMM (automatic market maker) in DeFi: The revenue of market makers that should be monopolized by institutions, through the mode of liquidity mining, enables ordinary users to participate in it.
The "P2E" of traditional games is similar to institutional (large capital) market makers, with extremely high technical requirements and high-frequency game changes, as well as a secondary market with extremely poor liquidity, all of which are giving retail investors a chance to participate in traditional games" A very high threshold has been set up in the process of P2E”.
The "P2E" of Chain Games is upside down. NFTs and DEXs provide a highly liquid secondary market, but what is lacking is the playability brought by traditional games. Therefore, when we are exploring the way out of GameFi 2.0, we must retain the advantages of chain games and absorb the advantages of traditional games. In the final analysis, one sentence:
how to rely on value to preserve the value of NFT.
The value of the game is reflected in demand satisfaction and community ecology. Many people ignore one of the most important issues when dealing with chain games research, that is, the game industry is essentially a cultural industry, not simply other Internet industries.
The game itself is a social behavior that seeks spiritual satisfaction in a specific time, a specific space, and a specific rule after satisfying material needs.
Note that based on the limitations of "specific time" and "specific space", games are destined to change due to the change of time and space. More generally, games based on culture will change with the development of society. The resulting aesthetic changes, the concept changes and changes.
But why in traditional games where most players cannot make money, why do players continue to consume for games and contribute to the number of online users and profits for game manufacturers? At its core is the mental satisfaction of playability, and users are willing to pay for that satisfaction.
More precisely, traditional games form cultural social interaction through playability, and players in the game form "cultural symbols" with high technology and high consumption, and gain recognition, worship and other spirits in the process of game social interaction. Satisfaction.
It has to be said that it is human nature to pretend to be 13, and it cannot be changed.
This is exactly what GameFi 2.0 is going to explore, with the addition of the attribute "decentralization":
- Encourage players to communicate in competition through a competitive game mode; and complete the asset interaction within the economic model in the process;
- Relying on game content and DAO to establish a social community, and use cultural symbols to give NFT value;
- At the same time, the profits obtained by traditional game manufacturers are distributed to community users in a decentralized manner.
Only in this way can the internal economic cycle of the game be completed, so that the game can achieve strong continuity, and at the same time, most users can obtain "P2E" benefits. This is GameFi2.0.
In the era of GameFi 1.0, the exploration of "P2E" errors, resulting in the lack of playability, the lack of NFT value, and the inability to recycle the in-game economy, will all be resolved in the era of GameFi 2.0.
However, as I said before, games as a cultural industry will have their own life cycle due to the rapid iteration of aesthetics. Therefore, as a game project party, more need to consider is the cultural community gathered because of the game playability.
This kind of cultural community will give the game project party a longer life cycle, and in the chain game, this kind of cultural community will give the project party the cornerstone of the game ecology.
As investors, what we need is to observe whether a game has investment value from this perspective. As a pioneer in the GameFi1.0 era, Axie can be based on more than 100 times the return of investors.
And now, the games that have opened the new era of GameFi 2.0, with greater narrative value and exact implementation, how much return can they bring to investors and early players?
100X, or 1000X? I don't know, but this has Very low risk, high return investment, I am willing to try it.