More than 75% of web3 games failed

What frustrates me is that the crypto scene didn't have to develop in this direction. While I'm not sure how to get around the electricity requirements necessary for any "coin" to exist on a large scale, the concept of a blockchain doesn't seem to me like an inherently predatory idea. The idea that coins or NFTs were investment vehicles really provided the opportunity for those with the knowledge and resources to manipulate a poorly regulated market and literal con artists to move in and be the main influence as to how everything played out. Although it's somewhat of a relief that it's widely recognized by most people as being a racket, the missed opportunity of the concept of permanent and intangible "objects" to be used for some purpose other than scamming does bum me out a bit.

when you pair finances (a realm filled with scams and con artists) to gamers (people who are notoriously more gullible than the average person) then it's not a great mix.

"You can make real money by playing this game" is genuinely one of the oldest scams on the internet, like at all. And gamers keep falling for it.
- To be fair, you could make real money by playing games… if you were a gold farmer or an account seller
- I don't understand how that can happen lol, this is one of those cases where I'm not so sure that victim blaming is wrong 100% of the time.
  
  Like if it's a little kid, mentally disabled person, or geriatric who's ignorance is being exploited, that's one thing. But a grown ass adult who's lived around technology their whole life? I simply don't understand how that happens as a question of causality.
  
  I have half a mind to post some retarded anime supervillain-tier monolog where I do a deep dive into the meaning of personal agency, question if these people even have any agency over themselves, and if they don't, claim that this is equivalent to them not even existing in the first place. I then proceed to hatch some obtuse and inefficent plot to exploit it with an unnecessarily high human cost.
The thing is, what use case can benefit from a blockchain?

Scamming, gambling, crime and speculation benefited from the lack of regulation, but barely cared about the underlying concept of a bitcoin.

But for anything real, much better solutions have existed for decades or centuries.

Blockchain is a solution without a problem and has been that for 25 years now.

If you have a solution that hasn't found a problem in 25 years, chances are that there will never be an actual problem that solution would solve.

So the killer apps of blockchain remain scamming, gambling, speculation and crime. Until there are more stringent regulations, then they'll go back to Western Union and Paysafe cards.
- For technological innovation to take place, two things need to happen. First, the idea needs to occur in the first place and second the idea has to be adopted in a widespread way. Many examples of technology we use were invented many times in the past and applied to processes where it didn't take. Because of this I think it's very possible that innovative people throughout the world have indeed come up with use cases for this technology which could fundamentally improve something which we are not aware of because for whatever reason the idea hasn't spread.
  
  Tech specialists are not often also expert marketers for their own ideas. At the same time, expert marketers involved with blockchain technology are typically involved on the scamming side so even if an idea is offered to the public which would otherwise sell itself it wouldn't have a chance in this environment. Blockchain experts, being primed to view this technology in its current context, may not even recognize how powerful a non-traditional use might be.
  
  This is all speculation of course, but this is why I'm not ready to rule the technology out entirely.
Proof of stake gets around the electricity usage. Of the chains that are still big it's really only bitcoin and it's derivatives that still use a lot of energy.
- That would mean something if Ethereum wasn't effectively dead in a ditch and being pissed on by a vagrant.
If you filter out the noise and ignore the omnipresent hate, there's still cool stuff there. The technology still works. The prevailing narrative doesn't change that. But the problems were inevitable, for the simple reason that the world is full of pent up financial desperation, and crypto is an incredibly powerful tool for letting people do what they choose with money in a way that isn't locked down by some payment provider or banking middleman. Borderless, permissionless. So naturally the main thing people went to do with it is competing to take each other's money somewhere on the spectrum between gambling and theft. It's non-crypto problems finding an outlet, and no amount of pushback from whatever non money crazed "scene" was out there could have done anything to stop that.
I'm not disagreeing at all but maybe my point is a little to the side of yours.

The main problem with people's perception is that people don't really know what they are talking about and conflate cryptocurrency with blockchain rather than knowing that cryptocurrency is a use-case for blockchain. For people who do know some about it, they may say that blockchain can't do anything that other pre-existing solutions can and do better.

But as I see it blockchain is a unique technology and that does make it a good solution for some sorts of problems. Not every problem and maybe not even many problems but some. The power usage argument is mainly a red herring at this point because most chains that people would use for something functional do not/no longer use proof-of-work (which is what was eating the power) and now use proof-of-stake which is as power efficient as any old server.

NFTs as a form of digital authenticity seem pretty interesting and blockchain in general in a logistics/tracking contact makes sense to me. In the context of web3, which I admittedly know little about, rather than a money grab play-to-earn or whatever it is called, seems like blockchain could be used for transferability of assets and decentralization. How about a creative game where you create things and their ownership is maintained via NFT. Build a contraption or costume in one game and bring it into another. Maybe something that benefits all like a "folding at home" where new solutions/tech is created via crowd-sourced activity and shares of the product are authenticated via blockchain storage.

I assume one day we will be past the new tech -> apply old scams cycle.
Yeah, I think a big part of that is that people see this idea of digital permanence you're describing, and it gets misrepresented to shit.

Permanently Deleted

Good analysis, just a few nitpicks: AR is the future... when it matches human visual abilities, which may take several decades more, be it through glasses, or through a neural link. There is a deep uncanny walley in either case to overcome.

I would like to believe in a web3, but right now it's mostly web1/2 interfaces to something that could be achieved in any other way.

LLM AI has already revolutionized AI, it's the holy grail "glue" to keep different AIs working together, including itself.
- Permanently Deleted
- "Good analysis, just one nitpick: I blanket disagree with everything you've said in your editorial section because raisins."
I wouldn't play Web3 games, I don't really see a future for web3

There's no future for these because the big players that could pull it off have no reason to do so. Game publishers love FOMO and thus hate trading, and platform owners would probably look at Valve's success with the Steam Marketplace instead of the continued failure of crypto.

I also don't really see a future for VR/AR.

This one doesn't have that same sort of constraint where it fundamentally doesn't make sense.

VR has a future as an entertainment system for sure. Probably not as widespread as simply grabbing a PS5 and playing Madden, but there's a ton of potential especially as older hardware drops in price and game libraries continue to expand. Porn is gonna keep this concept alive forever either way.

As for AR, its future is utility. Seeing map directions on the road itself, interactive models during meetings, having real life Shadowplay built into your glasses since they're camera peripherals, etc. Or porn but in your room with your own parts idk.

Still have no idea wtf a web3 game is.

edit: just read some descriptions and I swear a group of people said “but what if everything in a game was a micro transaction?”

Change "micro" to "macro" and you've got it. You get a game then additionally buy all of the assets. "Fee2Pay" is a term that got coined a few years ago and it fits here too.
- I mean I know the saying that all crypto trading is gambling but this seems to just run with it.
That’s basically it, except everything is darn expensive.
Depending on who you ask, it’s either God’s gift to all the cryptobros and GameStop ~~bagholders~~ apes or it’s games that have a more convoluted version of Steam trading but on the blockchain.

Tbh, anything NFT or crypto-related I feel like is scammy as hell at this point in time.
A bunch of cryptobros who don't really have an interest in playing video games started to think "what if everything in a game was a cryptocurrency, and what if instead of playing for fun, you invested in the game to earn more money?"

Seriously, "play-to-earn" is the thing they want to make happen. They took all those boring trends that make shitty microtransaction-fests feel like a job, and they saw a future where stuff like this would actually be your job.
- Someone should have told them Texas Hold’em already exists.
  
  I guess in a world where you can get paid to do surveys all day, why not? It sounds intriguing, and there’s enough regular financial management sims that I could see it working somehow, but apparently not yet really. Be interesting to see the ones that didn’t fold and why they’re still around. Though that could just be because of people willing to part with their money.

Every one of these games succeeded at parting fools from their money.

This is only counting confirmed dead games. There are still loads of game companies and shot loads of stupid peoples money to be drained.

I played a “web3” game for a while, based on real estate. It’s still around. It has some possibilities to make real-world money but seems to function mainly on game scrip, like most microtransaction games. The idea is solid, “crypto virtual property” copy of the real world, but holy cow were the developers absolutely terrible at making it fun. The non-financial mechanics of the game are the most god-awful boring thing I have ever seen. I guess they’ve improved it recently with street racing, but I haven’t tried that.

I'm so sick of the late stage capitalism approach to art 'Well FOOD as an art lives on Tips, why not ALL ART live on constant hand reached out while dancing for approval?'

Pay to pay games. Of course they fail, apart from when poor people play them in the hopes of making some pocket change. Most of them don't even have gameplay outside of the monetization.

Permanently Deleted