About chain games: I conducted a survey, talked to 62 players, and reached 7 conclusions

Author: Jian Shu

When it comes to blockchain games, many Web 3 old OGs might think this is a "chicken rib" track. You could say it’s viable, but after so many years of development, there hasn’t been a standout game. Just when a decent one finally emerges, it gets suppressed… But if you say it’s not viable, the capital flows in like a gust of wind, nurturing a bunch of AAA-level blockchain games. The key is that the games have been made, and they do have some gameplay, but the token prices just can’t seem to rise…

In the first half of the year, our team also began to focus on researching the blockchain gaming track. I took my team members to experience quite a few games, and through our experiences, we found that some games are quite "fun," while others are just Web2 mini-games that have been moved to Web3 without any creativity. Of course, there are also some blockchain games that can’t even be called "games," yet they have received funding and listed on major exchanges…

So, at this point in my research, I can’t help but want to explore a few questions:

1. What does the current blockchain gaming track need more: "gameplay" or "gamification"?

2. What’s the difference between them?

3. From the perspective of Web3 players, what do they need more?

To clarify these questions, I specifically spent 5 days conducting an in-depth survey with 62 players, and based on the feedback, I drew 7 conclusions about blockchain games. In the second part of the article, I will focus on analyzing these survey results. However, before the analysis, I’d like to first discuss the most talked-about issue in the current blockchain gaming track: the question of "gameplay" and its distinction from "gamification."

A Word Apart, A World of Difference

In November 2019, the founder of MixMarvel proposed the term GameFi, giving rise to a new track. Three years later, the globally popular Axie and StepN introduced a new gameplay model—X to Earn—and kicked off the first year of Web 3 game financing, with nearly $10 billion raised. Subsequently, a slew of AAA-level games entered development, and this track has shifted from focusing on "Fi" to emphasizing "gameplay."

Everyone is talking about "gameplay," but what does "gameplay" actually refer to? How does it differ from "gamification"?

Here’s an analogy using a cake:

Gameplay refers to the core mechanics and experiences of a game. It includes the rules, challenges, interactions, and how players derive enjoyment from the game. You can think of gameplay as the cake itself; it is the main body that determines the basic flavor and shape of the cake.

Gamification, on the other hand, refers to applying game design elements, game thinking, and game mechanics to non-game contexts to enhance user engagement and motivation. This is like the icing and decorations on the cake; they make the cake look more appealing and make you want to eat it, but they are not the cake itself.

In other words, "gamification" determines "appetite," making you "want to eat," while "gameplay" determines "taste," judging whether it’s "good or not."

In the context of Web3 blockchain games, gameplay is the foundation of the game, the direct way for players to engage in gameplay, experience stories, interact, and compete. Gamification, however, is about how to motivate players to participate in community building, market trading, and other unique activities in Web3 through game mechanics.

For example, Bigtime is a typical Web3 game with "gameplay." Firstly, in terms of scenery, the game features different landscapes corresponding to different dungeons and unique scene designs. These varied and novel designs prevent players from feeling bored and repetitive, enhancing the experience during gameplay. Secondly, the random drop of rare equipment and NFTs from defeating monsters adds excitement, akin to scratch cards, providing many "thrill points." Moreover, players' growth and improvement within the game further enhance its gameplay. The game skills can be defined as players' "fixed assets," which are developed through continuous practice in the game. Players will hone their skills to defeat challenging dungeons and bosses, and even zero-investment players can defeat pay-to-win players, giving them a sense of real progress and empowerment.

Another example I previously shared on Twitter is Cards AHoy, which is also a representative of Web3 games with "gameplay." As a card-based blockchain game, the CA gameplay is simple, with a meme vibe, and matches last 60 seconds, making it easy to pick up. Players can pre-configure their battle teams. In PVP, the pre-configured decks take turns, with each card having a certain amount of "health" energy, using a wheel battle format to clash in succession. Players consume the opponent's card energy based on skills and attack attributes. Once a card's energy reaches zero, it is replaced by the next card until all cards are exhausted, resembling an extension of the Tian Ji horse racing model. The gameplay seems simple, but it has deep gameplay expansions, such as daily stamina changes, new race types, skill varieties, and time-based mechanics.

It can be said that there are indeed some excellent projects emerging in the "gameplay" aspect of current Web3 games that have gained recognition from players. However, improving "gameplay" in this track is not overly competitive because there are very few Web3 games that can truly be considered fun. After all, making the "cake" delicious takes time and skill.

Thus, when some blockchain game projects find it hard to compete on "gameplay," they choose to focus on "gamification," pushing the incentive mechanisms in Web3 to the extreme, and start to "embroider" and "frost" the "cake" excessively, such as the blockchain game Spacebar in the Blast ecosystem.

This game was previously included in the 2X points list during the 2X points event in the Blast ecosystem. I believe many players who engage with Blast points have tried it out. Its developing company, AO Labs, secured $4.5 million in funding led by YGG, making it a blockchain game with backing.

The core gameplay of Spacebar is very simple:

1. Register a plane account.

2. Pilot the plane through space, where there are other planets (projects) and planet introductions (project descriptions).

3. Long press the spacebar to enter a planet (project) to see the project introduction, community links, and some TVL summaries.

In addition to the main gameplay, Spacebar also features daily sign-in activities to earn points. These points seem to be related to the points in the Blast ecosystem because, after signing in for a week, I personally received golden points in the Blast ecosystem. Besides signing in, players can also enter Stake in Spacebar to stake their ETH, earning dual points from both Spacebar and the Blast ecosystem.

You see, whether from my personal experience or from my introduction to its gameplay, you might find that it doesn’t really feel like a "game," does it?

Although the interface is designed with planes and interstellar themes, along with various planets and music rendering, making you feel like you're "playing a game," after experiencing it, you realize that it’s merely gamifying the process of users entering Web3 to learn about projects.

It attracts you to come back daily through sign-in points (previously there was even a 3X points event), and then collaborates with the Blast ecosystem to entice you to stake ETH for TVL, while also earning Blast's 2X points, and then uses "gamification" actions to encourage you to learn about other ecosystem projects.

Every action here isn’t about making the "cake" tastier; it’s about making you want to "eat" it more. By using sign-ins, staking, and collaborating with well-known ecosystems to provide various points, it gives you more motivation to participate and immerse yourself in "playing."

But are you really playing a "game"? Yes and no. If we must call it a game, it should be named "Mining Points for Tokens." If we say it’s not a game but another form of DeFi, that seems reasonable too…

Similar "gamification" blockchain games include Xpet, Xmetacene, and the recently popular Notcoin on the Ton ecosystem, as well as Catizen, which has already surpassed ten million users. All of these have made significant efforts in incentive mechanisms and gamified the process of players mining.

But can we say that the act of "embroidering" on the "cake" is wrong? What if the "diners" just want to see a more exquisite "cake"?

What Do Web 3 Players Really Value?

In fact, whether the cake is "delicious" is a somewhat subjective judgment; opinions vary. Creating a cake that everyone thinks is "delicious" is indeed not easy, but making you "want to eat" is not difficult. As long as various "incentives" are added to entice you, you will be very eager to eat.

So, does the current Web3 environment favor making a cake that makes people "want to eat," or one that makes people feel "delicious"?

The ones qualified to answer this question are not the cake makers but the diners themselves.

That is, the real Web3 players. What do they value more? Why do they play this game? How long do they play? What attracts them the most? And what reasons lead them to quit the game?

Regarding these questions, I conducted a small sample survey with some fans and players, resulting in 7 conclusions:

1. Currently, the number of blockchain games played by Web3 players is not many, generally within 5 games.

2. The main channel for Web3 players to obtain information about blockchain games is Twitter.

3. 90% of Web3 players spend no more than 2 hours a day playing blockchain games, with 57.5% of players spending less than 1 hour on blockchain games.

4. The popularity of a game is the main factor determining whether players enter a blockchain game.

5. The proportion of players who play blockchain games due to "gamification" and "Fi and other money-making factors" is 30.6%. The proportion of players who play blockchain games due to "gameplay" and "rich gameplay" is 29%, nearly equal.

6. The proportion of players who abandon a blockchain game because "gamification disappears" and "no longer has money-making appeal" is 38.7%, while the proportion of players who abandon a blockchain game because "gameplay disappears" and "it’s no longer fun" is also 38.7%.

7. Among the most anticipated blockchain games, the top 5 mentioned by players are: Xterio ecosystem games, MATR1X, Space Nation, Pixels, and BAC Games.

To be honest, I was a bit surprised when I received the survey results because, as a veteran Web3 player, I always thought that people played blockchain games purely for profit, and not many truly cared about "playability" or "gameplay." However, the survey revealed that half of the players are willing to experience a game that is genuinely "fun."

In other words, half of the players have begun to shift their focus from the "chain" to the "game" itself. Thus, from this survey, we can extract an insight:

The current Web3 gaming track seems to have reached a turning point and is beginning to truly return to "health." The "chicken rib" phase of Web3 gaming seems to be coming to an end.

Regarding "gameplay" and "gamification," current Web3 players value both and are "betting on both sides."

After all, the taste of "diners" is also improving. No one wants to look at a beautifully decorated "cake" and then take a bite only to find it’s a lump of dung…

In Conclusion

Therefore, whether it’s innovation in "gameplay" or "gamification" in the blockchain gaming track, as long as there is innovation, it’s good. However, no matter how innovative, discussions about innovation must never stray from "demand." Over the years, humanity's basic needs have remained unchanged: the need for food and clothing, the need for self-actualization, which ultimately boils down to a few types. So what has changed?

--- --- is the form of meeting those needs.

In the past, game developers used Web2 games to satisfy people's spiritual needs. Now, Web3 gaming is merely a different form of satisfaction, but the needs being met are essentially the same:

--- --- the need for spiritual freedom and emotional release.

However, due to the implementation difficulties of Web3 gaming, to be honest, there are very few Web3 games that genuinely possess gameplay and can meet players' spiritual needs. Therefore, they can only go all out in "gamification." But can we say that Web3 gaming has no future?

--- --- No, as long as people still have spiritual needs for games, Web3 gaming will definitely have a future!

But when will this future, which can meet players' spiritual needs, be realized?

--- --- It remains uncertain; the market is actually waiting for a breakthrough.

However, one thing is undeniable: whether it’s about making a "cake" that makes people "want to eat" through "gamification," or making a "cake" that feels "delicious" through "gameplay," the ultimate goal is the same:

To make the "cake" bigger!

In this way, both the "cake" makers and the diners themselves will benefit, right?