Research on the Blockchain Gaming Track: The Debate between Gameplay and Gamification
When it comes to blockchain games, this sector seems to be in an awkward position. After many years of development, there hasn't been a truly successful case yet. Even when there are occasional impressive performances, they are quickly suppressed. However, capital continues to flow in, giving rise to a batch of AAA-grade blockchain games. Although the games themselves are not lacking in playability, the currency prices remain sluggish.
In the first half of the year, our team focused on researching the blockchain gaming sector. I led the team to experience multiple games and found that some are indeed quite interesting, while others are merely Web2 mini-games moved onto the blockchain, and there are even some projects that cannot be considered "games" at all that have secured financing and opportunities for listing on exchanges.
This inevitably raises a few questions for me:
Does the current blockchain gaming industry need more "gameplay" or "gamification"?
What is the difference between the two?
What do Web3 players really need?
To this end, I spent 5 days conducting in-depth research on 62 players and arrived at 7 conclusions. Before analyzing these research results, I would like to first discuss the currently hot topic in the blockchain gaming community regarding "gameplay" issues and the difference between it and "gamification."
A slight difference makes a world of difference.
In November 2019, the concept of GameFi emerged. Three years later, the global popularity of Axie and StepN has given rise to the X to Earn model, sparking a wave of funding in Web3 gaming. The financing amount is close to 10 billion dollars, with a large number of AAA games in development. The competition has evolved from the initial focus on "Fi" to the current battle over "gameplay."
So, what does "gameplay" actually refer to? How is it different from "gamification"?
We can use a cake as a metaphor:
Gameplay is like the main body of a cake, determining the basic flavor and shape of the cake. It includes game rules, challenges, interactions, and the ways players derive enjoyment.
Gamification is like the icing on a cake; it makes the cake more appealing but is not the cake itself. It refers to the application of game design elements and mechanics in non-game contexts to enhance user engagement.
In other words, "gamification" determines "appetite," making you "want to eat," while "gameplay" determines "taste," judging whether it's "good or not."
For Web3 chain games, gameplay is the foundation of its existence as a game, serving as the way for players to directly participate in the game, experience the storyline, interact, and compete. Gamification, on the other hand, incentivizes players to engage in community building, market trading, and other Web3-specific activities through game mechanics.
Bigtime is a typical Web3 game that emphasizes "gameplay." First, the game scenes are rich and diverse, with unique designs for different dungeons, avoiding a sense of monotony and enhancing the gaming experience. Secondly, the random drops of top-tier equipment and NFTs bring a sense of excitement. Furthermore, players' growth and improvement in the game enhance the gameplay. Players' skills can be seen as a type of "fixed asset," which can be sharpened through continuous practice to challenge higher difficulty dungeons and bosses, even allowing free-to-play players to defeat pay-to-win players, making players truly feel their progress and strength.
Cards AHoy is also a representative of "gamification" in Web3 games. As a card-based blockchain game, the CA gameplay is simple, featuring a Meme style, and is easy to pick up with a 60-second round. Players can pre-configure their battle teams and take turns in PVP. Each card has a certain "health bar" energy, and they collide in a rotating battle format. Skills and attack attributes are used to consume the energy of the opponent's cards; once it reaches zero, the next card is replaced until all cards are exhausted, somewhat similar to an extension of the Tian Ji horse racing model. What seems like a simple gameplay actually offers deep expansions in terms of game mechanics, such as daily stamina changes, new race genres, skill types, and time sequences.
It can be said that there are indeed some impressive projects emerging in terms of "gameplay" in the current Web3 gaming space, which have been recognized by players. However, truly interesting Web3 games are still few and far between, as making the "cake" "tasty" requires time and skill.
Some blockchain game projects, after finding it difficult to win on "gameplay", have turned their focus to "gamification", maximizing the incentive mechanisms of Web3. For example, the blockchain game Spacebar on the Blast ecosystem.
The core gameplay of Spacebar is very simple:
Register an airplane account
Fly an airplane to explore space, discover other planets ( project ) and planet introduction ( project introduction )
Long press the space bar to enter the planet ( project ) to view the project introduction, community links, and TVL overview.
In addition to the main gameplay, Spacebar has also launched a daily sign-in to earn points activity, which seems to be related to Blast ecosystem points. From my personal experience, after signing in for a week, I obtained gold points in the Blast ecosystem. Additionally, ETH can be staked in Spacebar to earn dual points from both Spacebar and the Blast ecosystem.
Whether it's a personal experience or an introduction to the gameplay, you will find that it doesn't actually feel like a real "game". Although the interface is designed with an airplane and interstellar theme, accompanied by various planets and music rendering, creating an illusion of "playing a game", the actual experience reveals that it is merely a "gamified" process for users to understand Web3 projects.
It attracts users to enter the game daily through a check-in to earn points ( and previously had a 3X points event ). It collaborates with the Blast ecosystem to attract users to stake ETH to provide TVL, while also earning Blast's 2X points, and further uses a "gamification" approach to guide users in understanding other ecosystem projects.
Every design here is not to make the "cake" taste better, but to make you "want to eat" it more. Various points are offered through incentives such as check-ins, staking, and partnerships with well-known ecosystems to enhance user engagement and immersion.
But can this really be called a "game"? Maybe yes, maybe no. If it has to be given a game name, perhaps "Mining Points for Tokens" is more appropriate. If it's said to not be a game but rather another form of DeFi, that seems fine too.
Similar "gamified" blockchain games include Xpet, Xmetacene, and the recently popular Notcoin in the Ton ecosystem, as well as Catizen, which has surpassed ten million users. All of them have put significant effort into incentive mechanisms to "gamify" the process of player mining.
But can we say that the practice of "embroidering" on the "cake" is wrong? What if the "diner" just wants to see a more exquisite "cake"?
What do Web3 players value the most?
The question of whether a cake is "delicious" is actually a rather subjective judgment; different people have different opinions. It is indeed not easy to make a cake that everyone finds "tasty," but making it "desirable" is not difficult; it can attract people simply by adding various "incentives."
So, is the current Web3 more suitable for making a cake that makes people "want to eat" it, or a cake that makes people feel "delicious"?
Those who are qualified to answer this question are not the "bakers," but the "diners" themselves.
That is, the real Web3 players. What do they value more? Why do they play this game? How long have they been playing? What is the most attractive point for them? And what reasons led them to quit the game?
To address these issues, I conducted a small-scale survey among some fans and players, and drew 7 conclusions:
Currently, Web3 players have played few blockchain games, basically no more than 5.
The main channel for Web3 players to obtain information about blockchain games is Twitter.
90% of Web3 players spend less than 2 hours a day playing blockchain games, with 57.5% of players spending less than 1 hour.
The popularity of a game is the main factor players consider when deciding whether to enter a blockchain game;
Because "gamification" ( has factors such as Fi and other monetary incentives as attractions, the proportion of players who engage in blockchain games is 30.6%. Because of "gameplay" ) being rich and diverse, the proportion of players who engage in blockchain games is 29%, which is comparable.
Because "gamification disappears" ( no longer has the appeal of making money, the proportion of players abandoning a blockchain game is 38.7%. Because "gameplay disappears" ) is not fun, the proportion of players abandoning a blockchain game is also 38.7%;
Among the highly anticipated blockchain games, the Top 5 most mentioned by players are: Xterio ecosystem games, MATR1X, Space Nation, Pixels, BAC Games;
After receiving the results of this survey, I felt somewhat surprised. As an old player in Web3, I always thought that everyone played blockchain games purely for profit, and there shouldn't be many people who really care about "playability" and "game quality." However, the survey shows that half of the players would try a game because it is genuinely "fun."
In other words, half of the players have started to shift their focus from the "chain" to the game "itself". From this survey, we can draw 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" stage of Web3 Gaming appears to be coming to an end.
Both "gameplay" and "gamification" are currently valued by Web3 players, who are also "betting on both sides."
After all, the taste of "diners" is also improving. No one wants to look at a beautifully decorated "cake" and take a bite only to find it's a pile of excrement.
Conclusion
Therefore, as long as there is innovation in the "gameplay" or "gamification" aspects of the blockchain gaming track, it is good. However, any innovation cannot be discussed without considering "demand." Over the years, humanity's basic needs have actually remained unchanged: the need for food and clothing, the need for self-worth realization, and it all comes down to just a few types. So what is changing?
is a form of meeting demand.
In the past, game developers used Web2 games to meet people's spiritual needs. Now, Web3 Gaming is just a different form of satisfaction, but the essence of the need being met is fundamentally the same.
The need for mental freedom and emotional release.
Due to the implementation difficulties of Web3 Gaming, there are currently very few Web3 games that truly possess playability and meet the spiritual needs of players, so we can only make a big deal out of "gamification." But can we conclude that Web3 Gaming has no future because of this?
No, as long as people still have a精神需求 for games, Web3 Gaming will definitely have a future!
But when will this future that can fulfill players' spiritual needs arrive?
It is currently unknown, and the market is also waiting for a breakout point.
However, one thing is for sure, whether it's creating a "cake" that makes people "want to eat" ( gamified ) or creating a "cake" that makes people feel it's "delicious" ( gamification ), there is only one ultimate goal:
Make the "cake" bigger!
In this way, both the "cake" makers and the "diners" themselves can benefit, right?
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
8 Likes
Reward
8
8
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
0xSoulless
· 07-09 15:25
Suckers get on board again.
View OriginalReply0
AltcoinAnalyst
· 07-09 10:42
From the TVL data, it is fundamentally unsustainable. The current death rate of 87% of projects in the blockchain gaming sector cannot be ignored. It is recommended to wait for the explosive period; I will first organize a long-term observation table...
View OriginalReply0
MetaverseVagabond
· 07-06 17:15
We engage in Cryptocurrency Trading just for fun.
View OriginalReply0
DefiEngineerJack
· 07-06 17:14
ser, show me a single blockchain game that's not just a glorified ponzi with fancy graphics *sigh*
Reply0
FastLeaver
· 07-06 17:10
Blockchain games are just about making money.
View OriginalReply0
AirdropHunterKing
· 07-06 17:03
I've been playing P2E for several years, and it's always just a field of suckers. It's just a tool to play people for suckers.
View OriginalReply0
ValidatorViking
· 07-06 16:55
smh these aaa blockchain games lack protocol resilience... just another pump n dump waiting to happen
Turning Point in the Chain Game Track: Balancing Game Quality and Gamification, Player Demand May Be Key
Research on the Blockchain Gaming Track: The Debate between Gameplay and Gamification
When it comes to blockchain games, this sector seems to be in an awkward position. After many years of development, there hasn't been a truly successful case yet. Even when there are occasional impressive performances, they are quickly suppressed. However, capital continues to flow in, giving rise to a batch of AAA-grade blockchain games. Although the games themselves are not lacking in playability, the currency prices remain sluggish.
In the first half of the year, our team focused on researching the blockchain gaming sector. I led the team to experience multiple games and found that some are indeed quite interesting, while others are merely Web2 mini-games moved onto the blockchain, and there are even some projects that cannot be considered "games" at all that have secured financing and opportunities for listing on exchanges.
This inevitably raises a few questions for me:
To this end, I spent 5 days conducting in-depth research on 62 players and arrived at 7 conclusions. Before analyzing these research results, I would like to first discuss the currently hot topic in the blockchain gaming community regarding "gameplay" issues and the difference between it and "gamification."
A slight difference makes a world of difference.
In November 2019, the concept of GameFi emerged. Three years later, the global popularity of Axie and StepN has given rise to the X to Earn model, sparking a wave of funding in Web3 gaming. The financing amount is close to 10 billion dollars, with a large number of AAA games in development. The competition has evolved from the initial focus on "Fi" to the current battle over "gameplay."
So, what does "gameplay" actually refer to? How is it different from "gamification"?
We can use a cake as a metaphor:
Gameplay is like the main body of a cake, determining the basic flavor and shape of the cake. It includes game rules, challenges, interactions, and the ways players derive enjoyment.
Gamification is like the icing on a cake; it makes the cake more appealing but is not the cake itself. It refers to the application of game design elements and mechanics in non-game contexts to enhance user engagement.
In other words, "gamification" determines "appetite," making you "want to eat," while "gameplay" determines "taste," judging whether it's "good or not."
For Web3 chain games, gameplay is the foundation of its existence as a game, serving as the way for players to directly participate in the game, experience the storyline, interact, and compete. Gamification, on the other hand, incentivizes players to engage in community building, market trading, and other Web3-specific activities through game mechanics.
Bigtime is a typical Web3 game that emphasizes "gameplay." First, the game scenes are rich and diverse, with unique designs for different dungeons, avoiding a sense of monotony and enhancing the gaming experience. Secondly, the random drops of top-tier equipment and NFTs bring a sense of excitement. Furthermore, players' growth and improvement in the game enhance the gameplay. Players' skills can be seen as a type of "fixed asset," which can be sharpened through continuous practice to challenge higher difficulty dungeons and bosses, even allowing free-to-play players to defeat pay-to-win players, making players truly feel their progress and strength.
Cards AHoy is also a representative of "gamification" in Web3 games. As a card-based blockchain game, the CA gameplay is simple, featuring a Meme style, and is easy to pick up with a 60-second round. Players can pre-configure their battle teams and take turns in PVP. Each card has a certain "health bar" energy, and they collide in a rotating battle format. Skills and attack attributes are used to consume the energy of the opponent's cards; once it reaches zero, the next card is replaced until all cards are exhausted, somewhat similar to an extension of the Tian Ji horse racing model. What seems like a simple gameplay actually offers deep expansions in terms of game mechanics, such as daily stamina changes, new race genres, skill types, and time sequences.
It can be said that there are indeed some impressive projects emerging in terms of "gameplay" in the current Web3 gaming space, which have been recognized by players. However, truly interesting Web3 games are still few and far between, as making the "cake" "tasty" requires time and skill.
Some blockchain game projects, after finding it difficult to win on "gameplay", have turned their focus to "gamification", maximizing the incentive mechanisms of Web3. For example, the blockchain game Spacebar on the Blast ecosystem.
The core gameplay of Spacebar is very simple:
In addition to the main gameplay, Spacebar has also launched a daily sign-in to earn points activity, which seems to be related to Blast ecosystem points. From my personal experience, after signing in for a week, I obtained gold points in the Blast ecosystem. Additionally, ETH can be staked in Spacebar to earn dual points from both Spacebar and the Blast ecosystem.
Whether it's a personal experience or an introduction to the gameplay, you will find that it doesn't actually feel like a real "game". Although the interface is designed with an airplane and interstellar theme, accompanied by various planets and music rendering, creating an illusion of "playing a game", the actual experience reveals that it is merely a "gamified" process for users to understand Web3 projects.
It attracts users to enter the game daily through a check-in to earn points ( and previously had a 3X points event ). It collaborates with the Blast ecosystem to attract users to stake ETH to provide TVL, while also earning Blast's 2X points, and further uses a "gamification" approach to guide users in understanding other ecosystem projects.
Every design here is not to make the "cake" taste better, but to make you "want to eat" it more. Various points are offered through incentives such as check-ins, staking, and partnerships with well-known ecosystems to enhance user engagement and immersion.
But can this really be called a "game"? Maybe yes, maybe no. If it has to be given a game name, perhaps "Mining Points for Tokens" is more appropriate. If it's said to not be a game but rather another form of DeFi, that seems fine too.
Similar "gamified" blockchain games include Xpet, Xmetacene, and the recently popular Notcoin in the Ton ecosystem, as well as Catizen, which has surpassed ten million users. All of them have put significant effort into incentive mechanisms to "gamify" the process of player mining.
But can we say that the practice of "embroidering" on the "cake" is wrong? What if the "diner" just wants to see a more exquisite "cake"?
What do Web3 players value the most?
The question of whether a cake is "delicious" is actually a rather subjective judgment; different people have different opinions. It is indeed not easy to make a cake that everyone finds "tasty," but making it "desirable" is not difficult; it can attract people simply by adding various "incentives."
So, is the current Web3 more suitable for making a cake that makes people "want to eat" it, or a cake that makes people feel "delicious"?
Those who are qualified to answer this question are not the "bakers," but the "diners" themselves.
That is, the real Web3 players. What do they value more? Why do they play this game? How long have they been playing? What is the most attractive point for them? And what reasons led them to quit the game?
To address these issues, I conducted a small-scale survey among some fans and players, and drew 7 conclusions:
Currently, Web3 players have played few blockchain games, basically no more than 5.
The main channel for Web3 players to obtain information about blockchain games is Twitter.
90% of Web3 players spend less than 2 hours a day playing blockchain games, with 57.5% of players spending less than 1 hour.
The popularity of a game is the main factor players consider when deciding whether to enter a blockchain game;
Because "gamification" ( has factors such as Fi and other monetary incentives as attractions, the proportion of players who engage in blockchain games is 30.6%. Because of "gameplay" ) being rich and diverse, the proportion of players who engage in blockchain games is 29%, which is comparable.
Because "gamification disappears" ( no longer has the appeal of making money, the proportion of players abandoning a blockchain game is 38.7%. Because "gameplay disappears" ) is not fun, the proportion of players abandoning a blockchain game is also 38.7%;
Among the highly anticipated blockchain games, the Top 5 most mentioned by players are: Xterio ecosystem games, MATR1X, Space Nation, Pixels, BAC Games;
After receiving the results of this survey, I felt somewhat surprised. As an old player in Web3, I always thought that everyone played blockchain games purely for profit, and there shouldn't be many people who really care about "playability" and "game quality." However, the survey shows that half of the players would try a game because it is genuinely "fun."
In other words, half of the players have started to shift their focus from the "chain" to the game "itself". From this survey, we can draw 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" stage of Web3 Gaming appears to be coming to an end.
Both "gameplay" and "gamification" are currently valued by Web3 players, who are also "betting on both sides."
After all, the taste of "diners" is also improving. No one wants to look at a beautifully decorated "cake" and take a bite only to find it's a pile of excrement.
Conclusion
Therefore, as long as there is innovation in the "gameplay" or "gamification" aspects of the blockchain gaming track, it is good. However, any innovation cannot be discussed without considering "demand." Over the years, humanity's basic needs have actually remained unchanged: the need for food and clothing, the need for self-worth realization, and it all comes down to just a few types. So what is changing?
is a form of meeting demand.
In the past, game developers used Web2 games to meet people's spiritual needs. Now, Web3 Gaming is just a different form of satisfaction, but the essence of the need being met is fundamentally the same.
The need for mental freedom and emotional release.
Due to the implementation difficulties of Web3 Gaming, there are currently very few Web3 games that truly possess playability and meet the spiritual needs of players, so we can only make a big deal out of "gamification." But can we conclude that Web3 Gaming has no future because of this?
No, as long as people still have a精神需求 for games, Web3 Gaming will definitely have a future!
But when will this future that can fulfill players' spiritual needs arrive?
It is currently unknown, and the market is also waiting for a breakout point.
However, one thing is for sure, whether it's creating a "cake" that makes people "want to eat" ( gamified ) or creating a "cake" that makes people feel it's "delicious" ( gamification ), there is only one ultimate goal:
Make the "cake" bigger!
In this way, both the "cake" makers and the "diners" themselves can benefit, right?