A few years ago, the world of cryptocurrencies and digital entertainment was shaken by the promise of play-to-earn (P2E) games. Under the premise of "play and earn money," they managed to attract millions of users with the vision of a future where leisure time can be easily monetized.
However, behind this brilliant showcase lies a flawed economic and philosophical model. Play-to-earn games, in their current state, have become a ticking time bomb, ready to leave a trail of loss and disillusionment in their wake. Far from being the playful revolution that P2E games promise, they are more like an unsustainable mirage.
The fundamental fallacy: confusing play with work
The first mistake is focusing the design of an activity born for fun on profitability. The essence of a video game lies in fun, narrative and challenge. People play games to be entertained and have a good time.
The traditional market takes advantage of this to extract money from users using the play-to-win principle. P2E models corrupt the essence of gaming by turning the experience into a labor-based task, causing players to make decisions based not on enjoyment, but on revenue optimization. When in itself, this should be a residual reward.
What is presented as "playing" actually becomes "working" for an uncertain reward, with the added stress of the volatility of crypto assets and the frustration that these types of games are often not something you would play "for free."
The Hidden Pyramid Scheme
The sustainability of any P2E economy depends on a constant and growing influx of new "player-investors." Yes, most P2E models require an initial investment, so the correct term would be Invest-to-Play-to-Earn.
And this is where one of the crux of the problem lies. The income of current users depends on the users who come later. Well, if there's no demand for the game token, its value plummets to almost zero, causing revenue (calculated in FIAT) to fall to levels where it's no longer profitable to continue playing, nor is it possible to recover a potential investment.
The cycle is always the same:
- Hype Phase: A project launches its tokens and NFTs. The first players invest, and as more people join, the value is artificially inflated.
- Saturation Phase: As time progresses, the supply of assets exceeds demand. For prices to remain stable, an infinite flow of new players would be needed.
- Collapse Phase: When the influx of new users slows, the bubble bursts. Assets lose their value, "returns" evaporate, and the majority, who arrived late, are left with worthless digital assets.
This model doesn't create real value; It only redistributes it from the bottom (the last to arrive) to the top (the creators and early investors). And this is where the mistake lies.
Graveyard of Fallen Giants
Recent history is rife with examples that corroborate this analysis. These are not marginal projects, but some of the most prominent in the ecosystem:
- Axie Infinity: the "success story" that became the ultimate warning. At its peak, it was hailed as the future of gaming. However, its token (SLP) plummeted more than 99% from its peak. Its economy collapsed because the issuance of SLP (the reward for playing) massively exceeded its demand or utility. What was once a source of income for many became a trap for countless others.
- STEPN (Move-to-Earn): an app that promised to pay for walking or running with NFT sneakers. Its token (GST) suffered a catastrophic collapse. The model required a perpetual influx of new runners to buy and repair sneakers, which became progressively more expensive. When the flow of new users declined, the system collapsed, leaving holders with useless NFTs and worthless tokens.
- Gods Unchained and Splinterlands: collectible card games where the value of NFT cards depends entirely on new players purchasing them. As the market became saturated and they no longer offered a compelling enough gaming experience on their own, the value of the collections plummeted. They are still active, but with a small active user base, a concentration of tokens among a few whales, and mixed opinions within their small communities.
- Thetan Arena: a free-to-play hero shooter with P2E elements. Its token (THG) experienced a brutal decline, and the game went from having hundreds of thousands of concurrent users to just a few thousand, once it became clear that it was impossible to generate real profits.
A new P2E model?
First and foremost, games must be entertaining (some would say addictive) so that people want to play them regardless of whether there's a reward or not. It must also be understood that every game has a lifecycle where new updates, campaigns, or even versions are needed. And yet, mainstream interest in them eventually dies. And this is something that Web3 or P2E games haven't understood.
Another area where P2E opportunities are underutilized is the focus on user profiles and their data, rather than on the games themselves. Imagine a gaming system where a user could move from one to another without losing their stats, money, or profile. They could jump from a card game to a golf game to a shooter without having to start from scratch or buy a new cryptocurrency. Each player could have a niche where they could have fun, and once they got bored, they simply moved on to a new game with their profile and winnings intact.
In this case, people would play for fun, moving from one game to another according to their tastes, and selling coins would be a plus, not the ultimate goal. This is the case in some traditional games that allow the transfer of items and coins between users. Some sell these items to earn extra income, while others buy them to upgrade or help them pass levels.
Unfortunately, decentralization isn't always optimal, but if future P2E want to succeed, they should keep in mind what's discussed here and look more closely at traditional games and video games.
Conclusion: A Call for Common Sense
If they continue as they are, decentralized play-to-earn games are a dead end in the evolution of video games. Especially because they confuse the purpose of entertainment, build parasitic economies that depend on infinite growth in a finite world, and ultimately exploit the financial hopes of those most in need of an opportunity.
P2E players must change if they want to prosper, and above all, survive. In the meantime, staying away from play-to-earn schemes is a prudent financial decision unless you're willing to participate in a Ponzi scheme disguised as a game that isn't fun for you.
Posted Using INLEO
Nunca digas nunca, la idea es joven todavía y puede evolucionar bastante. El punto de quiebre principal es la lógica oferta-demanda de un token vinculado a un item que no tiene capacidad para sostener interés más allá de un marco determinado, ni para sostener su aspecto piramidal.
Como decía un dibujo animado bien viejo, hay más de una manera de despellejar un gato. La industria de los videojuegos ha evolucionado drásticamente desde sus inicios, la lógica interna del Dave tiene bien poco en común con la del WoW. Es lógico esperar que ese tipo de cambios cualitativos continúen apareciendo. La dirección del cambio puede no ser aparente ahora, pero raramente lo es antes de que suceda el cambio.