The games based on the blockchain economy are not only cool, but also more profitable.
Intro
In previous posts we have reviewed two themes:
the economics of blockchain in gaming and in esports. I would like to provide calculations for the economy and what it can give, I would like to mention that this sector is now actually being formed and only exist in the minds and in the future projects.
A small digression about the majority of gaming projects on the blockchain:
We are pleased that the top people from the industry are now starting to think not only about the profits within the ICO, and hype of the unproven projects, as well as incomprehensible Third-Party projects, with the team which is built not on the top of developers, but from the cyber-pro gamers in the first place and dubious investors with a dubious reputation, which are based on speculation on the sale of content in third-party games, without taking into account the change of the offer as soon as the developers understand that this is a real market, as it happened with gambling, so it happens with other intermediaries, because this market was originally illegal and only at this moment is not the main interest of developers.
Something good
Fortunately, we have positive examples in the industry, for example Tim Sweeney - CEO of Epic Games https://venturebeat.com/2017/08/30/game-boss-interview-epics-tim-sweeney-on-blockchain-digital-humans-and-fortnite
GamesBeat: I heard a talk by Jon Jacobs, the guy who bought his island in the virtual world and turned it into a nightclub. He articulated something I thought was interesting about this leisure economy we’re heading toward. Why do we have to work? Why don’t we get paid to play? If you have the beginnings of things like esports, streaming, and user-generated content, you have all these people getting paid to play. How do we go from just a few to many more people getting paid to play?
Sweeney: There’s real value in that. If you look at why people are paid to do things, it’s because they’re creating a good or delivering a service that’s valuable to somebody. There’s just as much potential for that in these virtual environments as there is in the real world. If, by playing a game or doing something in a virtual world, you’re making someone else’s life better, then you can be paid for that.
We need to start rethinking the way we structure these large-scale game economies, especially as they get bigger and more complex. They should not simply be a means for the developer to suck money out of the users. It should be a bi-directional thing where users participate. Some pay, some sell, some buy, and there’s a real economy.
If you look at what Valve has done with CS: GO and other games, they have a vibrant economy. Lots of people earn a living in those games. When you buy something, you’re not just buying it from Valve. You’re often buying it on an open marketplace from some other seller. It’s a very complex economy. There’s a lot of potential in that. We need to move toward a model like that in order to scale up to something like the metaverse. As long as it’s just the machination of a single company, there’s not going to be this bidirectional exchange of value. We need to keep that circulating.
In other words Tim said that those games are future, because we have bidirectional exchange of value instead of cash wallets.
Current Free-to-Play model
If we are taking how it works with the current Free-to-play economy, then it will look something like this.
We take a rather popular blog - https://appsamurai.com/5-most-attractive-mobile-markets-for-app-advertising/
We take the maximum ARPU, that is, the profit divided by all active players for the year - $88.94 in Korea.
For 10,000 players we will have $ 2436.71 for the day, while we took everything from the players, their time and money and they have nothing left except game items and no money in the gaming economy, no magic and energy occurs, you can get new users only providing gameplay itself, not giving real value to their gaming achievements.
Transactional economy on the block for Free-to-Play
Let's look at a fairly simple but elegant mathematical model.
Players * NumberOfTrades * TransactionAmount * Comission% = Game Developer Profit
Players - Players
NumberOfTrades - The number of transactions between players
TransactionAmount - Weighted average median of transaction
Comission is a developer's commission, it can be floating so that developers can be allowed to take 10% from a transaction with a small number of players, and 2% with millions of users.
Thus, for 10,000 active players, with the number of 2 transactions per person per day, with an average transaction volume of $ 3 and a platform commission of 10%, we get approximately $ 6,000 of profit per developer per day.
10000 * 2 * 3 $ * 10% = 6000 $
What is a transaction? For example, a player chopped trees for an hour, caught fish, coal, ore, and another player bought them, and created a sword, fried fish, and sold it to another player who went to kill the dragon or other players - so, every such trade between players it's a transaction.
Instead of conclusion
In the concept, blockchain economy provide not only equal rights, but also giving possibility to earn more with up to x3-x20 profits (Different ARPU per countries), while not stealing and punishing people, but leaving all participants with profit and money inside the economy.
Any comments and questions are appreciated.