Source: Tax_Cuts

Compiler: Odaily Planet Daily Wenser

Editor's note: As one of the hopes for Mass Adoption in the Web3 field, full-chain games have always been a hot topic in the market, but due to their entry barriers, operating costs, game playability and other conditions, they have not yet become the mainstream of the industry, and the number of users is relatively limited. Odaily Planet Daily has found an article from Tax, a former Alliance DAO, YC investor, and now the co-founder of the full-chain game Primodium, on the value of full-chain games and existing problems for everyone's reference and dialectical view.

4 practical problems solved by the full chain game

First of all, the new product needs to solve a problem that could not be solved before, otherwise the existing product will occupy all the market share. Luckily, omnichain gaming is a blue ocean field, and there are no long producers vying for attention in the space, which means we don't need to compete with Web2 gaming giants like Rockstar for the attention of the gamergate.

But to do so, it is essential to ensure that new issues are effectively addressed.

For omni-chain gaming, this means a new type of experience that players can't find elsewhere. Full-chain games are relatively slow and unwieldy, so they need to provide a very different experience from traditional games, and their value is mainly reflected in the following aspects:

Value point 1: Actual value of the asset

Strictly speaking, encryption assets are just numbers, but thanks to Decentralization (the strength of the network) consensus, we are able to truly give them economic value. For traditional games, giving economic value to their game assets often relies on the support of large, established companies. And for full-chain games, this attribute comes with it from day one.

Value point 2: free transfer of value

In contrast to the fact that game assets in traditional games are often subject to custody regulations and technical constraints, developers are often unable to hold USD cash funds, and banks do not have APIs for developers to build corresponding applications, while omni-chain games allow players to transfer assets through in-game actions.

Value Point Three: Bet Chip Attributes

Staking chips can make otherwise boring gameplay fun (because of its inherent gameplay), and the oft-mentioned playing cards are a prime example long of this. Omnichain games can be simple to play, but staking chips can make the outcome of the game more exciting because they are built on the Crypto Assets system (closely related to the market performance of Crypto Assets).

Value point 4: Remove consumption restrictions

Traditional gaming channels often have restrictions on in-game purchases. For example, with an in-app spending limit of $99, which makes it a poor user experience for users who cost more than about 0.03 ETH (about $100) for any in-game asset, the Crypto Assets market has no restrictions on spending and has enough market depth so that full-chain games can continue to operate in this risk environment.

The ideal and reality of full-chain gaming

There are 3 hidden problems with full-chain games

You may have noticed that the common advantages of omnichain games such as decentralization, persistence, and composability are omitted. In my opinion, the "characteristics" of these solutions often do not reflect the actual problems of full-chain gamers, so they are not a good reason to build on-chain games.

Problem 1: Decentralization

Gamers often want more long game updates and content, and real-time action in traditional video games is an important part of a game studio's job. Decentralization games weaken the centralized role of the "game studio", and in traditional games, the balancing and weakening of data is usually done for the benefit of the player. The "centralized story" of the World of Warcraft games that Vitalik has experienced has its merits, but in the long run, unbalanced gameplay can prevent more long players from joining. However, Trustless will play an important role in the viability of the in-game economy to function. In other words, an economic system that doesn't rely on a single character is healthier for the game ecosystem. **

Problem 2: Game persistence

The lifeblood of a full-chain game is its click-through rate, and it's fairly rare for a game (whether it's a traditional game or a full-chain game) to be able to run for a decade and maintain a certain player retention rate. The problem with most longest games is not that they are offline, but that players have lost interest in them. Just because it can "exist on the Blockchain forever" doesn't mean that longest people are interested in playing the game.

Problem 3: Composability

Writable plugins can help create more interesting player dynamics, but omni-chain gaming isn't the only way to achieve this. Web2 games themselves have editing plugins available, but longest people don't use them. Because gamers prefer to consume game content rather than produce content for games. Players may have other reasons to participate in the production of game content, but composability is not so absolute as a reason to play the game.

Summary: A new gaming experience is the key

Overall, omni-chain games can solve problems that Web2 (or even Web2.5 games that combine Web2 traditional games and Blockchain games) can't, but a large long of these problems are largely determined by the overarching principle of "why everything has to be built on on-chain".

However, the most important point is that omni-chain gaming should be able to offer a whole new gaming experience. But today, almost all encryption games don't follow this line of thought. They are either just traditional games with a Token system (commonly known as Web2.5 games); Either a normal game that runs entirely on the on-chain and provides a regular gaming experience. In the long run, no real gamer will experience these games for the sake of consumption.

As a result, we still have long things to do, and omnichain gaming still has a long way to go. **