Recently, several sectors of the market have been flourishing one after another. Inscription has opened up, Solana is gaining momentum, and Depin is following closely. Different sectors are indicating the same message through various signs:

“The bull market is finally getting closer”

At this time, the OGs who received the signal will subconsciously start thinking:

“Next, which track will the sector rotate to? Which one should we focus on?”

Is it the already popular L2? Or is it an inscription that is gaining momentum? Or is it GameFi, which has the potential to break out of the industry?

There are already numerous analysis articles and judgments available for the first two options. Therefore, today, I would like to shift the focus to the third option. Currently, there is still an opportunity for early adoption of the GameFi track.

What is the key to GameFi’s breakthrough?

What proportion of Game and Fi should be used to be healthier?

Which of the new GameFi projects in this round is worth focusing on and planning in advance?

1. Humanity goes to the left, GameFi goes to the right（GameFi’s Development Is Based on Humanity）

When it comes to GameFi, most people’s memories are still fixated on the last round of so-called “big hits”. On one side, there are 3A chain game masterpieces that receive staggering amounts of financing but are still difficult to produce. On the other side, there are opportunities with ultra-high yields. However, regardless of how the economic system is designed for P2E mining games that continue to experience a death spiral, players have consistently been trapped in the cycle of “dig, raise, and sell” through activities such as buying NFTs, completing tasks, and obtaining tokens.

What the designers of this strange circle often say is “Don’t expect people’s loyalty, but you can expect people’s greed.” They believe that as long as they grasp “greed” and continue to increase their financial attributes, then players will like No-brainers and rush like a duck.

Yes, greed is human nature, but don’t forget that human nature is not just greed.

In Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, the need for security, such as property ownership, is considered the lowest and most basic need. Higher-level needs include belonging, respect, and self-actualization.

Understanding it in theory alone may be difficult, but if you replace it with real choices in real-life scenarios, it becomes easier to comprehend.

Give you ¥500 yuan a day, let you take a class you don’t like at all, and often work overtime, without any time for yourself…

How long can you hold on to this kind of job?

Would you give up socializing, giving up pursuing and exploring other passions for the rest of your life just to make money?

Will you suddenly wonder in the dead of night, “What is the meaning of life? What happens after you make enough money?”

Here, I’m not saying that making money is wrong. What I want to say is that when only one need in human nature is satisfied, people will eventually have the idea of migrating to other levels of needs, and they are destined to be unable to achieve this level of needs if they stay too long. Only when needs at different levels are met will people continue to be stably involved in it.

Returning to the GameFi track, Fi should be the “motivator” rather than the “main force” for Game.

This is also the main reason why the GameFi track had a high overall attrition rate in the last round. When a group of people are competing for the same basic needs, it becomes challenging to break out of that cycle. As a result, they increasingly lose sight of higher-level human needs. This ultimately creates an awkward situation where human nature moves in one direction while GameFi moves in the opposite direction.

So if “Fi（financial inventives）” is not the sword that breaks out of the circle, the what is it?

To answer this question, we must first clarify what exactly is being “broken” by “breaking out of the circle”? Is it just a breakthrough from Web2 to Web3?

Not really! To break the circle, it is not the circle of people that is broken, but the circle of demand.

In the past, we used to draw a clear boundary between Web3 and Web2, considering Web3 as a distinct group of people and Web2 as another group. However, the key to breaking this cycle is to encourage the Web2 group to participate in GameFi, mistakenly believing that Fi would attract them as a significant catalyst for crossing the boundaries.

However, in reality, a person involved in Web3 may work as a clerk in a Web2 company during the day, using various Web2 software. Occasionally, they may take a chance in Web3 with their savings, hoping to make a big bet. Alternatively, if they establish their own studio or join a project team in Web3, they will still rely on the employment mechanism and collaboration methods of Web2 in the long run.

There is no clear boundary between Web2 and Web3. The difference lies in the needs rather than the people. When a person in the Web2 era has no financial constraints, their demand is for the ultimate experience, which cannot be achieved in the current Web3. As a result, they continue to stay in Web2. However, when they prioritize making money and privacy, they are drawn to the wealth of financial gameplay and decentralized attributes offered by Web3, prompting them to transition towards Web3.

Thus, to break the cycle, we need to focus on breaking through the continuous upward progression in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. This means meeting the needs of individuals at different levels within the same type of people. In other words, the key to breaking the cycle is to ensure that a GameFi project not only addresses financial needs, but also fulfills social, belonging, respect, and meaning needs at various levels.

Now that the problem-solving idea has reached the stage of “demand,” we will pursue this direction and delve deeper into the matter.

What quantitative indicators should be used to measure whether a product meets needs?Sufficiently compliant with human nature?

The answer is obvious — time

Regardless of Web2 or Web3, one thing remains constant, limited, and fair when it comes to individuals: everyone only has 24 hours a day. If we subtract the 8 hours of sleep, the time each person can control every day is reduced to 16 hours.

Within these 16 hours, we must allocate time for basic physiological and safety needs such as eating, drinking water, going to work, and earning money. The remaining time becomes a shared battleground for major Web2 and Web3 projects. The ability to fulfill multiple levels of users’ needs will determine who can capture more of their time and engage them deeply.

Therefore, in the face of human nature and needs, there is no distinction between Web2 and Web3; the competitors of major GameFi projects should not be another GameFi project.

Time is the common battlefield for all future businesses. The key to breaking through for GameFi and even the entire Web3 projects lies in meeting the needs of multiple levels.

2. 70% Game+ 20% Fi+ 10% Meme

At the beginning, I mentioned that while L2 and various local dogs are gaining momentum now, the GameFi track, although not yet improved, still has the most potential to break out of the circle. Why?

Because games have long been ingrained into our DNA along with human evolution and have become part of human experience.

Whether it’s the portraits of ancient Egyptians playing Senet chess in unearthed cultural relics, the ancient Olympic Games with physical confrontation as a game, or the first computer game “Noughts & Crosses” in history developed by Cambridge University scientist A.S. Douglas in 1952, it is evident that while humans and games evolve, one constant remains: games have always met the diverse needs of humans at different stages.

In ancient times, before the advent of electricity, playing games served as a means to foster closer bonds among tribes and their members. Games instilled a stronger sense of belonging and honor within the tribe. Over time, physical confrontation games came to be known as the Olympic Games, promoting friendship and unity among city-states through this form of competition. As time progressed, the development of electronic games increased. These games offer instant feedback, an honor system, a sense of achievement, social motivation, and other factors that make them immersive and, at times, addictive.

Although Fi is a product of the past 10 years, Game itself has become something engraved in human DNA. It can be said that it is not that Game needs humans, but that humans cannot live without Game. Moreover, from the perspective of the needs just mentioned, other Web3 native tracks only meet one level of needs, while the GameFi track itself integrates the needs of Game and the needs of Fi, meeting the more diverse needs of humans. Therefore, even if the GameFi track is not improving yet, it is undeniable that it has a higher probability of being out of the circle.

Since there is a high probability that GameFi will break out of the circle in this bull round, the problems it will face next are evident:

What’s the optimal mix that ensures a vibrant, sustainable ecosystem?

After examining numerous GameFi endeavors, a formula emerges: 70%Game+20%Fi+10%Meme, that is a blend of 70% gaming, 20% financial incentives, and 10% community engagement seems to strike the right chord.

The concept of the 20% Fi is easy to understand. As I mentioned earlier, it serves as a small incentive to attract users, motivating them to create a wallet, understand digital currency, and learn how to trade. However, it is important to note that this motivation alone is not the main driving force. Making money is just one aspect of the overall demand, representing only 1/5 or 20%. The remaining advanced needs, such as a sense of belonging, respect, and self-realization, must be fulfilled within the game itself.

In the past, when it came to GameFi returning to the game itself, everyone always mentioned playability, and everyone knew that “fun” and “stimulation” are the last words. But what is fun? What is the standard of stimulation? How are they quantified?

Thousands of people have different views, and perceptual words such as “fun” and “stimulating” are too vague and not precise enough.

A more accurate quantitative indicator should be - immersion time.

We all know that attention is where the time is, so how can we keep our attention at a stable level for a long time?

The “attention curve” of Lucy Jo Palladino, a Ph.D. in psychology from the United States, may give us some inspiration:

Lucy Jo Palladino - “Attention Curve”

You can see that a person’s attention is closely related to the external stimuli they receive. In this inverted U-shaped attention curve, when the stimulus level is too low, a person’s attention is at its worst, lacking motivation to do things. In the context of GameFi, when the game itself is too simple, players naturally cannot focus their attention and cannot immerse themselves in it.

On the contrary, when the stimulus is excessive, such as adding too many high-yield, high-risk, and high-threshold economic models like Fi, the player’s adrenaline levels become too high, leading to excessive excitement and generating feelings of tension and fear, ultimately causing them to leave.

Therefore, based on the power of 20% Fi, we need to put 70% of the focus on the stimulation points and rhythm design of the game itself, changing from the original indicator of monitoring the player’s gold-making efficiency to the indicator of monitoring the player’s immersion time.

For example, let go of your obsession with whether players earn money, and just observe whether the game itself can keep players immersed for at least 3 hours a day?

For example, try adding some visual and auditory information to test whether players are more immersed? Compared with “Hellbound” and “Uncharted”, the information increment of the latter is obviously higher than that of the former, and it is also easier to immerse.

For another example, can 10% of Meme elements be added so that players can not only play, but also create, transform from participants to creators, and then find similar people?

In the past, we cared too much about whether players made money and whether they were willing to invest again, but in fact we forgot that attention itself is money.

Return 70% of the effort to the game itself to let players immerse themselves first, then use 20% Fi to drive new players in, and finally use 10% Meme to allow players to find similar people and feel the meaning of self-realization when creating. Perhaps, this kind of healthier Proportion is the basis for breaking the game and retaining users.

3. From 0 to 1 is innovation, 1+1+1>∞ is also innovation

After writing the theory, the final goal is to return to the most practical issue:

This round, which project should be arranged in advance? Which project is the most innovative and has the potential to break the circle?

To answer this question, we must first clarify what innovation is.

In the last round, whether it was GameFi project developers or players, Dole finally sought out those innovative projects from scratch. Whether it’s 3A masterpieces or P2E, they always bet on those “new” models that they have never seen or played before. It’s all about that “new thing”.

Yes, this thinking model is correct, but there is a problem here. “New” = not historically verified = high risk = everyone accompanies the project team to cross the river by feeling the stones = the money invested becomes the trial and error of the project team cost.

It is true to innovate, but it does not have to be completely from 0 to 1, nor does it need to be a big production or 3A. Perhaps, the “combination innovation” of 1+1+1 is the new trend of this round of GameFi innovation.

This point was inspired by a chain game I was playing recently - Cards Ahoy “hereinafter referred to as CA”. This game just finished its second beta in November, and the data is very good, and will start its third beta in mid-January. It is not a 3A masterpiece that burns money, nor is it an unprecedented type that is absolutely innovated from 0 to 1. What inspires me is that it combines and splices together various needs that have been verified. , and finally established an inner loop.

CA is a card game with its own meme style, and it is easy to get started in 60 seconds. But it is not just a card game. The game includes daily battles, asynchronous battles and other auto-chess gameplay. As I said above, the key to determining whether this round of GameFi projects can make it out of the circle is diversification. The satisfaction of needs comes back to the game. Behind every game form and gameplay is a wave of fixed needs. When the two forms are combined and refined 1+1, the two waves of needs behind them will be captured. It also solves the problems and shortcomings caused by a single form.

For example, CA has strongly integrated auto-chess and card gameplay, which not only reduces the difficulty for users to get started, but also retains the fun of card game strategy and card grouping, ultimately showing the effect of 1+1 >2. There are many successful cases in the history of game development for innovations that combine two proven gameplay methods, such as: Don’t Starve (survival + construction + Roguelike), Clash Royale (simplified RTS + cards), Overwatch (FPS) +MOBA), Assassin’s Creed 4 Black Flag (RPG adventure + naval battle), etc.

After experiencing the adventure and radicalness of the last round of GameFi track, players have also learned skills in this cycle. Compared with projects that have always been trying to make a big pie, we prefer small and beautiful games that can be participated in the battle immediately after buying NFT; Compared with the unknown from 0 to 1, we prefer the familiar gameplay in Web2 plus the economic model of Web3; compared to the grand map and complex gameplay, we prefer simplicity, speed, and fun.

This is also the reason why I am optimistic about the game CA. It is practicing a 1+1+1 type of combined innovation, which not only draws on the successful cases of combined innovation in the history of Web2 games, but also combines the gameplay of Fi in Web3. Joined in to make every virtual prop in the game NFT, and the pricing and market control are based on the players’ needs based on the game mechanism, rather than the product pricing the game, truly providing game investment (including time, money, social interaction relationship) value quantification and transaction channels.

After participating in the closed beta, it is evident that compared to other blockchain games, this one feels simpler and easier to use. In fact, it can be considered superior. The American cartoon style provides a fertile ground for the growth and co-creation of Memes, and the gameplay is fully self-contained. According to the official DC, the total number of public beta reservations during the cold start event in September exceeded 1.2 million. During the 10-day file deletion test in November 2023, nearly 25,000 users participated in the internal test, accumulating a total online time of nearly 180,000 hours. More than 40 million collision data points were generated, and the cumulative transaction volume exceeded 210,000 TUSD (test currency), equivalent to USDT. The retention rate exceeded 47% in the ten days following the end of the test. Additionally, during this test, the highest transaction price for a single card NFT in the trading market reached 600 USDT. Overall, the internal test data demonstrates strong performance among current blockchain games.

In addition to having enough gameplay, this innovative 1+1+1 game also has a very big advantage - it is fair and low-risk. We all know that the last round of chain game projects with good backgrounds had long R&D cycles and were either difficult to produce or ran away, while those with poor backgrounds either had problems with the exit mechanism or tricked people directly from the beginning of NFT. It was not easy to succeed. Those with a good background and good experience have to work on a first-come, first-served basis. Whether you make money or not depends entirely on the timing of your participation.

But this kind of 1+1+1 combination micro-innovation project is different, because the angle of entry of this kind of project is often a verified need, and then it continuously +1 integrates new gameplay. In this way, The initial investment cycle is relatively short, and the content is delivered in advance and can be fully experienced after it is launched online. People who enter early can buy NFTs and compete. If the strategy is well designed, there will be profits. Even if you enter late, you are not afraid of taking over.

After all, card games rely on continuous operation and gameplay design. As long as new cards are continuously invested and old cards are combined to form new gameplay, an internal loop can be built. In this way, no matter when you enter the game, it will be relatively fair and the risks of participation will be Also relatively small.

Therefore, from the perspective of demand satisfaction, CA is the most humane and easiest to get out of all the new chain games I have seen so far. It can be said that the basic market can reach 70 points. The next step is to see how it designs 20% Fi gives Web2 players the motivation to cross this boundary.

First in terms of game assets:

Cards Ahoy has previously released MEME VIP PASS, which is divided into four levels: white, purple, gold, and black based on Holder rights and rarity. It was given to OG players and community contributors through Freemint in the early stages.

It is not difficult to see in the game’s economic system that PASS is at the core of the game’s economic system. In the previous two game tests, airdrops of game tokens, ice crystal keys and other rights were obtained through PASS pledge. As for PASS, a freemint NFT, the current floor price of ordinary white cards has reached 0.3E, but it is still undervalued compared to other games of the same period, and there are expectations for airdrops such as tokens and game NFTs in the future.

In addition, from CA’s white paper, it has indeed put a lot of effort into the economic model. From the perspective of past chain games, economic systems that only focus on token output will often face accumulating token selling pressure. These accumulated selling pressures will cause the project team to spend a lot of energy on monitoring and maintaining token prices rather than on gameplay design. At the same time, players also need to constantly observe currency prices and adjust their positions instead of enjoying the fun brought by chain games. CA has optimized this point and added diversified outputs, not just tokens, but also NFTs.

Only when the output channels are more diversified, the game play methods are more diverse, and the consumption scenarios are richer, can a healthier and fairer Fi attract enough new traffic and experience. After the traffic comes in, how to retain it is the fundamental measure of the life cycle of a game.

It is worth noting that after the second test, the CA economic system made a major update and adjustment, decoupling the value of the CAC token and giving it the function of purchasing season blind boxes. Coupled with the card alchemy system in the game, you can already feel the flywheel turning. In addition, CA’s MEME VIP PASS card has also been enhanced a lot, which can be said to be the core tool for playing games. During the third test period, in-game orange and purple cards are produced in limited quantities, so entering early will bring certain advantages to players.

In terms of breaking the circle, the publishing platform behind CA is Metalist Game. The team members come from first-tier game manufacturers such as Tencent, NetEase, Ubisoft, and Blizzard. The official website partner information can also be seen on Binance, OKX, NetEase, Associated Press, and Eternal Tribulation. Wujiang and other leading Web2 & Web3 manufacturers indicate that they have strong channel resources and the ability to break through the circle on both sides.

In terms of game mechanics, CA has also prepared to handle the high traffic of Web2. The game is designed to be easy to learn and playable anytime, anywhere. Similar to Clash Royale, there is a potential player base of hundreds of millions. Additionally, after the third test, CA has planned to introduce a guild system and a comeback arena. The gameplay of earning 10W U with 1U will also be highly appealing in Web2.

In general, the CA game has corresponding strategies and solutions from the potential of leaving the circle, to the health of Fi design, to how to retain migratory traffic after leaving the circle. It is reported that there will be more in the future. There are more surprises and innovations coming out.

If innovation from 0 to 1 is more likely to produce “hits”, then 1+1+1 combined innovations like Cards Ahoy will be more “lived”. After all, every 1 is followed by A demand that has been verified, and then continuously superimposed and integrated, is likely to present a scenario of 1+1+1>∞. This is also the innovation I want to see in this round of GameFi track.

Therefore, if you want to find some targets for early layout in this round of the GameFi track, you can look into Web3 games like Cards Ahoy that are light on investment, heavy on operations, micro-innovative, and with multiple elements.

After all, only by surviving can you have more possibilities. Time is not only the common battlefield for all future businesses, but also the test standard for the vitality of all future products.

Final Thoughts

When a tornado comes, no matter how unpredictable and stormy the surroundings are, there is always a core that remains intact and can clearly see the restlessness around it. In the last cycle, if we were all too caught up in the wind and ended up being swept away, this round, we might as well try to return to the most essential center and wait for the wind to come.

Unfortunately, we do not know how long it will take for this wind to blow, but fortunately, we now know the name of the center of the tornado —  “Humanity”

No matter what the type of Game is, no matter what the mode of Fi is, among the myriad of combinations, there is always one that impartially and precisely meets most of the demands of human nature. Find it, position it, and leverage it.

Disclaimer：

1. This article is reprinted from [PANews]. All copyrights belong to the original author [鉴叔]. If there are objections to this reprint, please contact the Gate Learn team, and they will handle it promptly.
2. Liability Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not constitute any investment advice.
3. Translations of the article into other languages are done by the Gate Learn team. Unless mentioned, copying, distributing, or plagiarizing the translated articles is prohibited.