Welcome to the July edition of BlockchainGamer.biz’s regular Mavens group.
As demonstrated by games such as Wildcard and Reaper Actual, does it make sense to release pure web2 games, keeping all web3 elements separate in other versions of the game?
Chris Heatherly – CEO, Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow
In the current distribution landscape, the strategy of abstracting web3 elements from the main game into a web-based metagame is an interesting approach.
It’s a way to maximize distribution on Steam and in the mobile app stores, but it fundamentally means the web3 elements are tangential or optional. It means the best real estate you have as a gamemaker – the game itself – is not being used to advance web3 mechanics. It feels logical given the state of affairs.
Maybe it’s even the right strategy at this nascent stage of web3 – you have to start somewhere – but it also feels like a way to slowly walk away from web3. These companies didn’t raise all this money and sell all these assets to their community just to have some side game betting on their main game.
Ben Cousens – Chief strategy officer, ZBD
The reason web3 elements are kept separate from these games is because games don’t need them. Real-world money is already in games. You don’t need a new token or a speculative layer to create a real in-game economy. It’s already here, and it works.
The idea that web3 is some missing piece for games is backwards. For value to flow freely in games, you just need very good payment rails and compliant infrastructure. Games succeed because they’re fun, well-designed, and make money in ways that make sense.
Sam Barberie – Head of strategy and partnerships, Sequence
Web3 is a very nimble technology for gaming: it can blend into the background of any existing “web2” feeling game and provide something as banal as a more transparent accounting ledger for games and publishers or creators (like what Overdare is doing); it can unlock and optimize things that some web2 games do currently, but with more security and scalability (like CS:GO skin trading, much of which already happens with web3); and it can provide net-new, opt-in opportunities for spectators, UGC creators, etc. (as in Wildcard and Reaper Actual).
The question of whether games should release web2 version and keep the web3 components as separate, opt-in experiences, is a philosophical and (in my opinion) a time-bombed one. The reason why some games choose different integrations of web3 has been a mix of
- 1) concerns about player sentiment,
- 2) concerns about game store policies,
- 3) concerns about the seamlessness of the player experience, especially for native mobile, console, or PC client games.
Concern 3 is easily erased with the right technology (Sequence powers Reaper Actual, for example, and Wildcard uses Sequence-authored standards). Concern 2 is a mixed bag depending on the distribution channel. And concern 1 is still valid, because gamers gonna hate.
For the time being, this means that many developers are de-risking potential challenges and pushback by thinking of web3 as something that players can engage with as an additional, but still native-feeling, journey. (In addition, web2 game economy loops are well understood by developers, but those enabled by web3 are newer.) Regardless of player sentiment or store policies, being mindful about the applications of new technology or monetization methods is a smart move, even if the distinction between web2 and web3 won’t need to be made in the future as player expectations and storefronts change. It is very easy to over-index on any new technology, and early web3 games saw a lot of over-indexing. Not everything needs to be web3. The same could be said for early VR games: not everything needs to pop out at you from all angles.
Reaper Actual is choosing the right approach to web3 technology for its audience, its gameplay style, and the areas where Smed and crew see opportunities to push the envelope and innovate. Regardless of what that means for how and where web3 comes into any game, it is exactly the right mindset and execution that will allow them and similar developers to thrive.
Alexander Goldybin – Founder and chairman, iLogos
Splitting web2 and web3 versions works right now because web3 still carries too much overhead. The onboarding process, trust issues, and tech stack are too far from mainstream-ready. But two separate products isn’t a long-term solution. It just highlights how early this space still is. If web3 features can’t live in the same game without hurting adoption, they’re not ready to be core features. Simple as that.
Quinn Kwon – Head of web3 strategy, Delabs Games
We believe the strategy of releasing a web2-first version of a game while keeping web3 elements in a separate, complementary layer makes a lot of sense, and it aligns closely with how we’re building at Delabs Games.
Our goal is to deliver great games that are accessible to everyone from day one, without requiring blockchain knowledge. By keeping web3 features modular and optional, we can ensure a smooth onboarding experience while still offering real benefits like trading or ecosystem participation for those who want it.
How we do things differently though is instead of fragmenting the experience across multiple builds, we focus on one game, with web3 elements integrated in a way that enhances gameplay without ever feeling forced. This is exactly the approach we’ve taken with Boxing Star X and Ragnarok Libre, with both titles built to be fun and complete for traditional players, while offering meaningful web3 layers for those who choose to engage.
We see this strategy not as a compromise, but as a smart, scalable path forward, and one that we’re actively embracing.
Parker Heath – Gaming Lead, Ava Labs
We believe this fragments the player base and economy. It optimizes for distribution, particularly on platforms like Steam, that historically prohibited crypto integrations, but leaves crypto opportunities untapped.
We prefer integrating web3 thoughtfully into core gameplay, as in Off the Grid on Avalanche. It offers seamless UX without alienating mainstream players, granting true asset ownership via NFTs and GUN token on the GUNZ L1 where the features are all there to be used without the player really needing to know anything about crypto. The key is introducing an economy to the game organically, not vice versa. Avoiding fragmentation builds a unified ecosystem for deeper engagement and value. Challenges like platform restrictions remain, but Avalanche innovations such as scalable L1s and low fees are overcoming them.
Jack O’Holleran – Co-founder and CEO, SKALE Labs
Creating easy-to-use and easy-to-play web3 games is difficult. Some fail because they make the crypto components too difficult and end up with a horrible UX. Whereas others fail because they completely neuter the game of the powerful value propositions brought to gaming by crypto and web3 and end up deleting the real values brought forth by blockchains. These are web2 games dressed up to make people “feel” like they own assets and can leverage the power of blockchain, but in reality they are larping.
I hope that the games in question strive not just to make a web2 game with web3 window dressing, but try to overcome both challenges. The games that do will win in this market.
The moment players think about transaction costs, you’ve lost them.
The real goal is to make the infrastructure invisible, while empowering users with true ownership, onchain transparency, and seamless market places. We built SKALE to be gas-free because the moment players think about transaction costs, you’ve lost them.
Great gameplay shouldn’t be confined to traditional gaming when the technology exists to seamlessly integrate blockchain benefits without any of the friction. These teams are moving in the right direction, but we can do better – shipping games that would succeed with or without blockchain, then letting web3 enhance the experience invisibly for everyone. That’s how you build sustainable companies that survive beyond the hype cycles.
Mitja Goroshevsky – GOSH co-founder, Acki Nacki co-author
There are several aspects to consider. Let’s start with the technical perspective. Imagine a blockchain that operates seamlessly as a complete game backend – imagine it being as fast, more secure, and incorporating all the inherent blockchain properties necessary to support real-time creation, trading, and exchange of in-game assets. Would there even be a need to discuss integrating web2 games with web3 elements if the entire game could function on web3 without any negative impact on game UI/UX?
The second aspect is distribution: platforms such as Apple – and Apple is not alone in this – actively resist web3 integration. Their resistance isn’t solely due to skepticism about scams; rather, it is primarily driven by their inability to control the financial flows and enforce substantial commissions, such as Apple’s infamous 30%.
This leads us to the third point: user perception. Significant lobbying and substantial marketing budgets have been deployed by major Silicon Valley IT corporations specifically to discredit web3 technologies. Why? The reasons are tied closely to the financial control issues highlighted above. Although perceptions are gradually shifting, there has been a concentrated, largely US-driven campaign against web3 and crypto, causing many potential users to remain wary. Indeed, many gamers actively avoid anything that mentions web3.
Given these factors, it does make sense strategically to create separate game versions tailored to different markets – some with web3 components and others without. For example, we’re currently employing this approach with Popit Game. While the game itself operates entirely on Acki Nacki blockchain, the gameplay available on platforms like Steam has no user-facing web3 components. Despite being fundamentally the same game, users on these platforms don’t interact directly with web3 elements. Those interested in the web3 aspects must access them through a dedicated web3 frontend elsewhere.
Jason Lim – Director of games, Sei Development Foundation
Balancing in-game economics and gameplay presents a significant challenge when a game maintains separate web3 elements across different versions. This approach could lead to the emergence of two distinct player classes, raising questions about which group – web2 or web3 players – would receive greater in-game benefits.
Furthermore, developers would need to manage varying Costs Per Installation (CPI) between the different player classes.