Talk:Blockchain game

Squid scam for controversy section

While the Squid crypto never had its game released, which is part of the scam, I think this one particular incidence qualifies as a "scam preying on the hype on blockchain game and its related crypto currency", thus should be included in this article under the new controvery section. BBC report. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

For one, controversy sections should be avoided as much as possible. But as the video game never was released nor did anyone really talk about the content of the game, I don't think it qualifies under a blockchain game. --Masem (t) 04:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

It was news, but I am not sure its enduring. A sentence might be ok here, but we should be careful not to bias the article - such a scam is an exception to the rule, as far as I can tell. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Play-to-earn

Ping User:Masem re [1]. My understanding of play-to-earn is that earnin even a tiny sum is enough to quality a game within that title, you don't need to earn a living from a game for it to be play-to-earn? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that these are all still relatively new terms, and there's not a strong definition from most of this stuff. The best non-crypto/bitcoin source I can find on the term [2] points to the Axie Infinity example where they talk about a significant recurring income, rather than one-off sales like CryptoKitties NFT. --Masem (t) 13:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Before blockchain games, there are already unofficial "workshops" in MMORPGs which are organized game resources grinders for selling their resources to other players in order to earn a living. This is arguably an earlier form of "play to earn". Obviously the major difference being that Axie Infinity's scholarship is an official feature, while workshops in traditional MMORPGs are best described as ambiguously tolerated as they have been deeply integrated into the in-game economy. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Gold farming basically. --Masem (t) 00:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I know this is a relatively old talk but I just want to point out that Axie Infinity's scholarship is not an official feature. There is no infrastructure feature the game to support scholarships. Scholarships are done peer-to-peer, which means it's not a trustless system. Sky Mavis actually recommend players to only participate in scholarship with players they trust.

I also want to say "play-to-earn" is a really bad term to describe blockchain games because any multiplayer online game can be play-to-earn. DottMySaviour (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It isn't official, but the cryptocurrency gambling economy is absolutely central to the game, and 'scholarships' are an obvious and almost unavoidable consequence of this system. That Sky Mavis "recommends" players join any sort of 'scholarship' at all is telling. Sky Mavis could ban or at least discourage this if they wanted, but they don't. They know it happens, the game is now designed around this economy, and they haven't done anything to fix this, so 'scholarships' are a de facto part of the game itself.

But no, not all online games can be play-to-earn. Very, very few games directly compensate players at all, and among those who do, such as via tournaments, they do so in specific and special circumstances. To put it another way, nobody is playing Tetris 99 because they think Nintendo is going to pay them for winning. If players make some arrangement with other players, that's not "play-to-earn" that's just regular old gambling. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Sky Mavis do not discourage this because it's up to the players to do what they want with what they have in the game. Regarding this, the only thing Sky Mavis ban is banning players who multi-account and bots. They perform the bans by banning the Axies used by multi-accounters and bots. Axies that are banned cannot be traded indefinitely.

When I say Sky Mavis "recommend", I mean if a player decides to participate in scholarship activity, it is recommended to only do it with people they trust. I don't mean they recommend new players to do it.

What I mean by any online game can be play-to-earn is that if there is demand for players to trade in-game items or even a whole account for real-world money, there will be supply for it somehow. That's why gold farming is a thing in a lot of MMORPGs. Most MMORPGs prohibit players from participating in real-world money trading, but that does not mean players are not willing to take the risk.

This is going to get slightly off-topic, but the reason why blockchain games exist is because there are demand for games with real-world money market. Steam market is the closest we have to such concept but players don't get to withdraw money from their Steam wallet. One could argue you don't need blockchain for this, but blockchain allows for this concept to scale where players can trade seamlessly across the world. Surely there are legal issues but that's another topic for another day. DottMySaviour (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

WoW and other games which have had gold-farming problems have specifically fought against it. As a money laundering threat, it threatens the legal safety of the company. It also damages the game, making it less fun for everyone, including the gold farmers themselves. Blockchain doesn't fix either of these problem at all, and it has consistently failed to be any easier or smoother than 'centralized' alternatives. Grayfell (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I assume there's no rule limiting on how far we can continue this talk, so I'll continue for the sake of discussion. Personally, I don't see blockchain game as a solution to most problems, so I agree with you.

You don't need blockchain for real-money market. If sufficiently decentralised, blockchain is only there to provide a trustless system for transactions.

My hope for blockchain gaming industry is that over time with enough consumers reflecting its demand, countries will start making laws that allow for real-money market in games while still having AML laws. Every time something new in technology comes up, there will be new laws to cater for it. It won't be different for blockchain gaming.

Blockchain technology currently has its issue such as scaling but it's naive to think there's no solution to scale it while still keeping its core purpose.

I also don't believe it's easier to launder money using cryptocurrencies because it's so much easier to follow the money in blockchains, unless you are using Tornado Cash. I'm not familiar with how good Tornado Cash is for money laundering, but if it's very good for it, then I think it should be legally banned from existence. DottMySaviour (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a limit to how far we can take this discussion, but likewise, you cannot use this or any other talk page to spread misinformation. Money laundering is more complicated than you are presenting it, and NFTs are still very commonly used for money laundering and other forms of shadow banking. Again, blockchain doesn't address this, nor logically could it, since the primary reason it even exists is to bypass centralized control. This is its "core purpose". The demand for real-money-markets in video games is, mercifully, microscopic among consumers, but remains as strong as ever among casino owners. This artificial demand has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it's sound economic policy.

I have linked some sources in this discussion. If you insist on continuing this, you should at minimum do the same, as otherwise this is unlikely to lead to any improvements in this article. Grayfell (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Right, but I don't think there is a connection between significant income and this term, plus, many Axie players who just dabble don't get "significant income", which doesn't mean they are not earning something. IIRC you can start Axie by buying the cheapest Axies which are only few dozen dollars, but your expected income will be pennies... Anyway, non-crypto sources that IMHO just treat all those term as synonyms and use "play-to-earn" in is context: gamespot, TechCrunch, Fortune, The Sun, Rock-Paper-Shogun, The Diplomat, Yahoo Finance... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I still think that the definition is sufficiently vague that to say blockchain games are equal to play-to-earn games is a bit of a stretch, but they are 100% related concepts that should be covered within the same article, as at worst, play-to-earn is a subset of blockchain. --Masem (t) 13:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

What about play2earn games that dont use blockchain? Diablo 3 RMAH before 2.0 removed it is the most well known example. 87.51.178.26 (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2022

<--------------Explanation Required in Concept part! Add to current explanation---------------->

Blockchain games and crypto games work slightly differently; crypto games leverage pre-existing crypto currencies to provide gamers access to purchasing items earned through in-game rewards. Blockchain Games, on the other hand, use decentralised currencies that are generally developed by the game creators and are independent of other crypto currencies. Both solutions have advantages and disadvantages. <ref name="Gaminghodl">"Crypto Game Information". Gaming Hodl. 18 June 2022. Retrieved 20 May 2022. Adam448UK (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done That website does not appear to be a reliable source. We would need a reliable one to add that. --Masem (t) 14:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2022

A new study by blockchain game data aggregator Tingbits.com showed that 11% (351 out of 3139) of all blockchain games announced between 2021 to 2022 has been discontinued or canceled. Source: 11% of 3139 Announced NFT Games Are DEAD 0xLinear (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Promotional wording in footnote

Regarding this edit, as I said when removed this from the body, this kind of promotional filler doesn't help readers understand the topic, it just makes the article longer. That still applies whether this promotional wording is in a footnote or in the body of the article.

All sources are judged in context. What is the journal Risk Governance & Control: Financial Markets & Institutions? What is its publisher Virtus Interpress? Who are Phil Gonserkewitz, Erik Karger, and Marvin Jagals? I am asking these questions rhetorically, if that wasn't clear. The source does not appear to be WP:RS.

In context, this unreliable source doesn't demonstrate significance. It does a significantly better job of explaining what this trade group is, and does so using more formal and neutral language, but again, it doesn't indicate that this group is encyclopedically significant, and it isn't reliable anyway. It also doesn't mention any individual members, and merely cites the group's own website.

Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or advocacy. If this trade group has done anything at all, and that activity is encyclopedically significant, cite a source explaining it. Otherwise, this is functionally just adding promotional content for no good reason.

Grayfell (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

It should be removed. I also have some conflict of interest concern over user:JasonKryptonite who did this problematic edit. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that pending better sources and actual context, Blockchain Game Alliance should be deleted and the mention of it here should be removed. There is a lot that could be said about Ubisoft's involvement in blockchain gaming, (such as credible accusations that the entire thing is a deflection against labor and abuse allegations[3]) but if any sources exist which explain how this particular trade group has any impact on the real world, I haven't seen them yet. Grayfell (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been any rush to defend this content, I've removed it. I've left the redirect per Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. Grayfell (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I apologise for my late reply. I'm unable to keep up with every revert or objection on a daily basis and might sometimes take several days to answer.

The edit in question was made after having encountered mentionings of the blockchain game alliance in half a dozen peer-reviewed articles while researching the topic of this article in order to improve it, thinking an NGO co-founded by Ubisoft and supported by AMD might be of interest to the general public. That's all there is to it.--JasonKryptonite (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)