This post is thorough and provides clear examples of what it takes to build a successful game. The data-driven approach to focusing on successful games offers a reliable strategy for the wise allocation of funds.
As a builder in this space, I believe that Arbitrum offers a lot to NFT and game developers, a fact that often goes unrecognized. Many NFT collectors and web3 gamers currently do not have Arbitrum on their radar. NFT attention and activity are dominated by Ethereum, Bitcoin ordinals, and Solana. At the same time, gaming is experiencing significant growth on chains like Ronin and Immutable. In my view, Arbitrum presents an objectively superior platform for development compared to these alternatives. We need to make sure that this fact doesnât go unnoticed.
What truly sets Arbitrum apart from other chains are its remarkable innovations in Orbit and Stylus. I am convinced that what Arbitrum needs most at this moment is a larger number of developers pushing the limits of these tools and exploring new use cases. Gaming provides an ideal platform to thoroughly test the capabilities of Orbit and Stylus and to contribute to their evolution.
There is a notable overlap between developers in gaming and DeFi. Many of us are addressing a similar set of challenges related to security, scalability, interoperability, and mainstream adoption. The more developers we have within the Arbitrum ecosystem, the quicker we can tackle these challenges and develop hit applications. We share similar benchmarks for success, which both lead to increased liquidity on-chain and higher chain activity.
Numbers aside, I think a proposal structured similarly to this is much needed to keep Arbitrum competitive with other alternatives.
There is no comparison between DeFi and blockchain gaming. Camelot developers cannot tomorrow make their LPs suddenly crash in value because they can mint assets diluting them. A valid trade is evaluated by the blockchain, not by Uniswapâs centralized authoritative server. Interest in Aave is funded by fees, not by a blockchain grant.
Other blockchain foundations are FOMOing with absurd amounts of money into this narrative. Okay. Are they seeing a return? UAW and DAU are terrible metrics for reasons evident to anyone who has ever made a bot. Gaming has fundamental problems with trust, centralization, and insecurity that are not going to be solved no matter how many grants you throw at developers to make unfun games.
All of these listed games have already had their âseed roundsâ selling NFTs to hopeful investors. Iâm not going to run down the list to see who has lost all of their money and who hasnât, but one need merely look at Bridgeworld, Treasureâs own flagship game, to question whether throwing tens of millions of dollars more into the pit is really a good idea.
When The Beacon launched its demo back on December 2022, we alone composed more than 25% of the total network activity (and our game is not transaction-heavy). Ronin more than doubled their market cap with the pixels launch.
Games have an impact, specially as a UA gateway for the chain. Most of our users had no idea what Arbitrum was when we launched, they joined the chain because of the game
Granted, letâs evaluate carefully who we give the funds to. Most games on the space are not good projects, thatâs why we are picking Treasure and XAI to help filter them out, like publishers do.
Seeing ROI on these matters takes time. Games are hard to build and they take time and resources in contrast to building other Dapps.
Just one good game can bring thousands of users to the chain though, thatâs the reason gaming is one of the main narratives currently. A good portion of those users remain in the blockchain and rotate to others domains like Defi, and once in the chain, they often become highly loyal to it. Itâs also one of the best channels to onboard retail.
Blockchain and particularly web3 gaming are not going to disappear in 6 months, the industry is here to stay likely for years . Go to any mayor event and youâll quickly realize why brands like Bandai, Square Enix and Zynga jumped in. Gaming is the most profitable entertainment industry in the world, and they see the opportunity
Not too many times a chain gets the option to become the a flagship gaming chain. Builders will go where there is support for them as well as momentum, and other chains are starting to offer that in a fantastic manner.
Arbitrum still has momentum and a fantastic tech stack, but we risk losing that momentum if we donât maintain it, and once lost it will be very hard to sparkle things up again, specially in contrast to the competition.
After reviewing our project lineup, itâs apparent that our strength lies predominantly in publishing, with Treasure being a notable exception for its ability to deliver genuinely engaging and enjoyable gaming experiences. This situation underscores the urgency for Arbitrum to accelerate its initiatives to stay competitive within the blockchain gaming space, a point clearly highlighted in the Game7 report.
To effectively draw in game developers and builders who are well-versed in creating compelling gamesâa rarity in the current landscapeâwe must swiftly implement a grant system based on performance milestones. This approach needs to be adopted promptly, within weeks rather than waiting for the next cycle.
Game development that is not purely functional (see GameFi) but also engaging and capable of retaining players is a significant challenge, evidenced by the mobile gaming industryâs dynamics. Where most simply fail despite having plenty of (free) tools available and short learning curve.
Experienced game publishers are key to transitioning Web2 players to Web3 seamlessly. However, the focus on minor details by some DAO members, as seen in draft comments, could detract from addressing these strategic imperatives urgently.
We must take decisive action now to prevent falling further behind. Without a shift in focus, Arbitrum risks being pigeonholed into core De-Fi projects, missing out on what could potentially catalyze significant growth in the crypto sector.
Letâs prioritize strategic actions that align with our long-term vision. Now.
I have been a gamer and game dev for over 40 yrs, shipped over a dozen titles, worked with some of the best devs, publishers, distributors etc. Making games is hard. Itâs super expensive (even standard indie games cost a lot more than most people even think e.g. PalWorld was $7M. Just think about that) and fraught with all kinds of insurmountable risks.
Though I have been in blockchain since the Bitcoin whitepaper was released, I only started looking at Web3 gaming seriously (while learning to play with all the programming toolsets) during the pandemic when I was bored and trying not to die a horrible death from a virus. I also authored a series of articles specifically about it. Then, to separate it from my Web2 studio, in 2022 I spun up a Web3 startup to publish an MMORPG game (which was already 100% completed but going through extensive visual upgrades) . Then, last month, I spun up another [smaller] team to create a new third-person combined arms shooter based on one of my other IP - also for Web3.
Amid all that, in talking to trusted people in the space, chains, devs, investors etc. do you know what I have noticed? Most of them donât actually know the intricacies of funding and making games. Most of them just pretend that they do because their bags are at risk and throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks seems to be the plan. That plan continues to fail.
When you design and plan out a game, budget it, put a team together, depending on the game, thatâs usually a 2-5 yr commitment. And in some extreme cases - mostly for AA or AAA games - even 10 years. e.g. recently released Hellriders2 took 10 (!) yrs to make. The next GTA title is approaching just as long. And PalWorld - a phenom success - took over 3 yrs. Despite the fact that we have a LOT more tools today than back when I started and when we had to build everything ourselves, it takes longer because most of those tools are more complex and thus take a lot more time - especially for n00bs - to get going. And content creation is an absolute time sink. Itâs why you see most games now going with a low poly flat style art theme ala Fortnite et al.
All that said, the primary issue that I have found with anything related to Web gaming is that because itâs mostly about making money via owning stuff than about making and/or playing an enjoyable game, people think short-term. Unless you are staking tokens or NFTs for yield farming, why would you want to invest even $1M to make a game thatâs going to take upwards of 2yrs? In Web3, thatâs literally a lifetime. And itâs specifically why investors started doing token warrants as part of their deal flow so that they can get some - if not all - of their investment out sooner rather than later. Guess what that does to the token when they unlock.
Since 2020 when investors and chains started throwing funds at every cook who said they could make a game, the failures have been mounting in 2023 as a result because making games is hard; and most of those guys already cashed out and moved on to the next thing.
If you throw $500K at 5 teams to make a game for $100K apiece, you will reap what you sow. And the teams that have no funding, no vertical slice etc. are simply going to take that $100K because they can even though they know itâs completely inadequate to finish their game.
Most of the people doing BD for Web3 gaming donât actually understand how the process actually works. And those who do, are finding that even the core Web2 principles donât work in Web3 for some of the reasons I mentioned above.
Take for example the proposal in the OP:
How many serious and experienced builders do you think those amounts are going to attract?
And while I do get the gist there, I have to point out thatâs not how game funding - with risk mitigation - actually works. Plus, if youâre going to give a grant, then do that - but with the expectation that itâs money lost the moment itâs paid out. Expect nothing in return.
Here are some examples of Web3 gaming related proposals from our DAO:
(1) This was a $10M ask by Mighty Bear Games to create a publishing arm for the DAO. Itâs one of the most comprehensive AIPs that youâre likely to see.
(2) This was a $20M ask by Jonah Blake to create a publishing arm for the DAO. Yet another comprehensive proposal.
(3) This was a $500K (originally a much larger $2M scope) marketing co-op ask for one of my teams - for a 100% completed Web2 game being re-released as Web3; a first of its kind.
(5) This was a $500K ask for a game accelerator. It passed because all their buddies voted for it; but thus far, not a single game has come through there.
This is our DAOâs track record for passing game related AIPs. Itâs as bad as it looks.
My point is this. The people voting in DAOs for most things have no insight into how they actually work. And so, the size of the fund doesnât actually matter either way. The second part of that is, milestone based funding only works if the producers (at both ends, that being the dev and publisher/investor) actually know what theyâre doing, how the milestones are tailored, the criteria for milestone approval and payment etc. Itâs not as simple as it looks or sounds. Itâs a major op. All that, setting aside the caveats of doling out money via a voting system such as a DAO.
@dk3 made some exceptional points in his missive above regarding the criteria in this proposal and which all but guarantee that it wonât yield the expected results.
Djinn wrote an excellent proposal but which appears to minimize the involvement of outsiders. If the point is to have devs and publishers come to Arbitrum, then whatâs the point of having a criteria that says they should already be on the chain? That makes no sense to me - unless I am missing something. He also said:
âThe Ape community is now on Arbitrum, outside publishers looking to build on Arbitrum can also put forth proposals. I see a lot of interest coming from the publisher side which will = more builders.â
To me, thatâs wishful thinking. For one thing, why would any builder want to go on apechain instead of ARB? The primary thing that apechain creates is competition for ARB. I have no idea where a lot of publisher interest would be coming from just because apechain is on ARB. Plus, the state of our DAO all but guarantees that apechain is DOA because without AIPs passing thereâs seemingly no incentive to go on apechain. Plus, you can just deploy on ARB anyway - while also putting up a grant and running through the same gauntlet.
froggie made some other poignant posts as well. Specifically regarding how the funding would be doled out. As I mentioned above, the milestone proposals are entirely inadequate.
People like jlee who know how the grants gauntlet works can draw from a wealth of experience because, like some of us, those people do have the experience required to opine on such things.
I want to callout divdaurres eloquent post which also makes a salient point: chains tend to have a BD team that seek out experienced and credible builders. It rarely works the other way around. I would know because Iâve spoken to quite a few chains who do this - even as recently as last week.
In conclusion, whether the fund is $100M or $500M wonât make a difference if itâs :
going to all the same players already in the ARB ecosystem while already sitting on underperforming games.
if builders - at least the experienced ones - have to go through a daunting gauntlet that is the DAO voting system which has its own challenges, while trying to convince and on-board voters who have little to no understanding of how game dev actually works etc.
When I put up a $2M grant request at my DAO, it was an all-encompassing proposal from the perspective of both a dev and a publisher - and over 87% of the funds were to go right back into the community. Through discussions (as you can see in the link above), and having to explain it numerous times amid much resistance and derision, instead of withdrawing it entirely, I whittled it down to $500K just for the adoption of the token (at the time, we had no intentions of launching our own token) which would have ultimately led to the game being on apechain down the road.
And itâs not that my DAO, like this one, doesnât care about games. Itâs that, tribalism and favoritism aside, the power brokers donât; while others only care about preserving the treasury because giving out grants (unless itâs to their friends and contacts) leads to builders cashing out thus further depressing the value of the token. Itâs a double-edged sword. And even with the advent of apechain, my DAO basically built a chain for Yuga seeing as even those who would be inclined to use it, arenât likely to do so without going through the usual gauntlet. And why would they?
The experiences that most of us legacy game devs have had in Web3 is precisely why Web3 gaming continues to attract inexperienced people because apparently the plan is to throw everything at the wall and to see what sticks. Well, what if nothing sticks. Then what? Building a $25M game means that you donât actually need grant funding because for that kind of money, even if a chain or investor tosses you money, itâs probably going to marketing or UA. And with everything that goes into developing Web3 backends - of which security alone will keep up the most experienced team late nights - when you tell people that even a $1M game probably spends about $250K on Web3 integration alone, they look at you funny. Itâs with that type of mindset that we see grants - which arenât likely to fund games from scratch anyway - not being an attractive proposal for all but the most experienced builders. Thereâs no getting around that. And chains which already have their own BD or investment team, operate with the same mindset in that some tend to lack the experience and insight required to pick winners or losers. And so, you find that they tend to fund failures while passing on the ones that actually do stand a chance - and vice versa.
Getting DAOs to fund gaming isnât going to work out as planned; and so, will always yield failure and/r malcontent. Even if, as in the case of this proposal idea, itâs to funnel the money to publishers like Treasure who are already sitting on a list of underperforming (note: a fun game doesnât mean that itâs making money) games because there no guarantees in an industry that yields a 90% failure rate.
Finally, most Web3 communities tend to be âelitistsâ in nature; and that just works to keep most outsiders away. The result is a walled garden. Whatâs the point of having a kitchen full of foodies if you have no cooks?
If this community is serious about gaming on ARB, it needs to re-think the approach while noting that without skin in the game you might as well give the money away without any safeguards.
ps. This is my first time here; and I only opined because a very good friend of mine, deep in the ARB ecosystem, encouraged me to âcheck it outâ, the community was great, and for me to consider bringing (like my friends over at Neon/Shrapnel, I am likely to deploy both on AVAX) my games to ARB etc.
First of all, thank you very much for this article, it has been a very interesting read.
I want to say that from SEED we have been closely following the work that several members of the community have been doing on the draft of the Gaming Catalyst Framework.
Although we do not have great experience in the Gaming segment, we believe that this industry has a huge growth potential within Web3 and especially within Arbitrum.
That said, we are interested in knowing the current status of the framework formulation, as we have seen @karelvuongâs tweet and it would be good to know what actions the DAO can take to push this proposal forward.
While I am not sure I agree with âgaming is an easy winâ for Arbitrum, I believe there is much more we can do as a DAO to support the gaming ecosystem.
The costs (actual and estimates) are important for this area, so we are looking at
a new mental model that a Defi-centric DAO like Arbitrum has not embraced before
different timeframes, and KPIs that we are used to.
@thedereksmart, I think you make some good points (although in a very assertive way ).
Given your experience, what actions/practical suggestions do you have to avoid the limitations that you saw in other programs? How can we do better?
That said, itâs not just this DAO that is struggling with this issue. In fact, itâs not about the DAO at all. Itâs the nature of the beast. Whether itâs a DAO, a publisher, a distributor, a chain, an investor group etc. itâs the same situation. That being, which bets to make on games and which pool to pick from. Even the best game by the best and most experienced teams tend to fail. In fact, the more experienced and talented the team, the more ambitious the game - and thus the more spectacular (because people expect more from such a team) the failure.
Doing this initiative via a DAO initiative such as this has a substantially high chance of [spectacular] failure.
In fact, since DAOs were a thing, itâs never worked - thus far. And thatâs primarily due to growing pains, and also because making games - let alone finishing one - is a very difficult process. For example, TreasureDAO, for all their talent, experience and expertise, they too have found out how difficult it is to curate games - of any kind - and also what it takes to keep gamers playing them. Further, they and the others (Xai, Reboot, Hytopia, Sanko et al) arenât publishers per se. And so, they simply canât operate as one because that would imply a structure & process akin to a publisher or distributor in which the decisions and selections is a long arduous process that has no guarantees.
For example, Steam, EGS, GoG are all âpublishing store frontsâ. You fund your game. You sell it. In fact, only EGS - aside from their highly selective grants program - started the whole thing of pretending to be a publisher when they were doling out copious amount of cash for exclusives (which, btw, didnât amount to much in terms of adoption of EGS as you can see from here and here) in order to get a leg up on Steam. That didnât even make a dent. And they have the money to spend and the experienced people to actually pull it off.
Web3 doesnât [yet] have the equivalent of a publisher or distributor. Not really. All these platforms are just store fronts - just like Steam et al. And when investors and chains gave money to a bunch of people who had zero experience in actually making games - let alone seeing them to market - it created the problem that weâre now seeing. To the extent that very few of us from Web2 are remotely interested in bringing games to Web3 because, optics (trad gamers dislike Web3 games) aside, itâs created just another layer in a process that was already rife with all kinds of insurmountable challenges. I mean, around 14K games release on Steam each year - most of them fail to even make $5K. These are facts and the data is there for all to see - if you know where to look. Start by going to Game Discover Co as they have the best metrics. Itâs depressing.
So, while I believe that @Djinn has done a great job of laying it all out, it doesnât highlight the pitfalls as well as the risk mitigation which would be inherent in something like this proposal. Basically, this proposal is seeking to setup a publishing arm via a grant; while putting those funds in the hands of the same [outfits] currently sitting on distressed game assets. Itâs interesting - at least to me - that Dan references Lucasâ article on sustainable gaming ecosystem. Anyone who reads that - even without any knowledge of the gaming industry - will immediately see just how stacked up against the success the odds really are. And then it goes further by indicating that interested parties need to already be in the ARB ecosystem in order to apply. Though I believe that itâs subject to change, that it was even a condition to exclude game devs outside of the ARB ecosystem all but guarantees that itâs likely to be ineffective in attracting core game devs.
To be clear: Making a game for Web3 isnât the same as making a trad game. A game is likely to succeed or failure regardless of the target. In the end, it all boils down to the game and the teamâs ability to pull it off.
When any game dev goes to a publisher or investor looking for funds - for anything related to games - theyâre going to want metrics, a dev plan, a dev schedule, team bio - and now more than ever, a working vertical slice. There are no exceptions here. Setting up a $100M grant to give out money is all well and good, but itâs patently ineffective in every regard if the end result is to curate and fund games that stand a chance.
As I said in the TG channel, Nina Rong and the other authors highlighted games as the primary reason for their pitch to build apechain on ARB. You can read the AIP here. And I quote:
In that RFP, the ARB foundation - without an AIP (or whatever you guys call it around here), put up $1M per year to build & support growth on apechain - for three years. So, $3M. Itâs peanuts, really. And our DAO could have built apechain along the same lines if they were actually serious about it. In fact, Polygon, put up not only the costs of building apechain but also a $3M fund for growth (games etc).
The point that I am making is that people keep throwing out these immaterial sums of money for games as if thatâs how experienced people do it. Itâs not. Youâre not going to put up a $3M fund for games without someone coming to the conclusion that youâre just going to end up curating sub-par games - or give the money to inexperienced pals who are just going to do what theyâve been doing since 2020. That being, flooding Web3 with sub-par games. Then we come full circle.
And that some people believe that a decent mobile game only costs $250K to make is hilarious to me. Thatâs not even the average. Let me give you an example of the type of numbers that indie and even AA game devs think about when they decide to go make a game. Some years ago, I bought a game that cost the investors $25M+ to make. I wasnât part of the start, but came in toward the end when we were hired to complete it etc. So, I knew the numbers already. I ended up buying that game for a very low sum, and as of this writing, in total, has already cost me over $8M. And thatâs not counting the $3M+ that itâs going to cost me to re-release it as a Web 2.5 (itâs not all on chain) game as I weâre currently working on doing. Back in Jan, we started to work on a second Web3 game from scratch. You know what an 12-14 month dev time for a team of 6 cost? About $2M. And even so, thatâs because 1) weâre using UE5, and 2) itâs based on one of my existing IP for which we previously released a game through Microsoft; and so we already had all the production art assets (though subject to some improvements) needed for this second derivative game. With this, amortized for a start from scratch game, thatâs about $4M+ (at best) over a two yr span. Iâm not even joking here.
There isnât a single chain or grantor on this planet that any of us would go to and ask for even $2M to make a game, let alone $10M. Thing is, grants arenât supposed to fund a game from start to finish. But therein lies the rub. Thereâs a dearth of decent Web3 games because most the guys making these games arenât thinking long-term because anything determined to be âlongâ is likely to be regarded as âlongerâ when it comes to Web3. And most game devs - regardless of experience - already tend to have a terrible track record when it comes to dev time schedules. Just add a trailing zero to everything. There, fixed it. Itâs a process. So, whatâs going to happen when all the decent (depending on how you look at it) Web3 games take 2-5 years and a few million Dollars to make? Even if they donât need any supplemental funding such as from grants and the like?
Asking the foundation for $100M+ to do this, isnât a path to success, and I can all but guarantee that the result wonât be as expected. Especially as written. Do you want to see what something like this should like if itâs to have some chance of success? Please read the two AIPs by Jonah and the Mighty Bears guys that I previously posted. My AIP (also linked above) isnât that, because it was co-marketing and not a publishing collab like those, as I wasnât looking for money to fund the game dev. I just figured that I could push my DAO to embrace games - just like what you guys are doing here. And thus far, every single game related initiative has failed to pass there. Heck, we have yet to see anything from the $500K games accelerator that we funded. And thatâs mostly, again, because it takes time.
Creating a $100M pool to curate games is a lot more risky and fraught with insurmountable challenges than just encouraging devs to run the voting gamut whereby they get to layout the game plan, the schedule, the team, the ask etc. And if itâs $30K or $3M, so be it. Taking the decisions out of the hands of the voting members only puts it in the hands of a select few who wouldnât have the same oversight as the eclectic - though in some regard, inexperienced - DAO voters. Plus, most people have zero confidence in DAO votes anyway - regardless of the merits. So thereâs that.
When I look at the ARB grants, I canât help but wonder why there isnât, for example, a 100M Gaming Incentive Program, managed directly by the foundation in concert with external teams who have the experience to guide them through funding decisions. I mean, the STIP was a whopping 50M! Similarly, earlier this year, there was an $85M grant program which was handled in concert with a council and advisors - who, I would assume, have the experience to manage that specific program. So, my suggestion would be for something like that to be setup, and with its own council and advisors who have the requisite development, publishing and investment experience - and who arenât likely to just go give the funds to their pals while ignoring worthy devs - especially from Web2 devs who tend not to have much headway into the tightly-knit Web3 ecosystem, as well as reliable contacts within it.
Disclaimer: We are deploying both of my Web3 games on another chain - not ARB; and so, none of this matters to me either way other than I love opining on things that are within my experience and purview when asked and/or needed. While my [direct] takes tend not to be popular because most of our Web3 degens prefer the rosy WAGMI picture, the least that I can do is just lay it all out because itâs unlikely that most would take that particular risk.
We had a several productive discussions at Eth Denver between the Foundation, DAO members, and gaming experts (exPolygon folks, big VCs, former publishers, Fortune 5 gaming peeps) about the Gaming Catalyst, and the unilateral feedback that we received was:
Arbitrum as an ecosystem absolutely wants to support gaming, but it needs to be a sustainable model that encourages great builders with upside for the DAO
The effort does require experts and best-of-class industry folks to make this a success
Both items are being addressed with edits to the draft - which will be published to the forum in a separate post. (The open draft is now about 3 weeks outdated with the most recent suggestions put forth by a variety of industry voices).
Sounds like you got some really great feedback at eth Denver; and those two points are precisely the gist of both of my [lengthy] missives above - as youâve no doubt noticed.
Let me expand on those two points:
Chains donât need to become something theyâre not. Theyâre just tech stacks. e.g. datacenters host and feature services, they donât try to be/do anything else. Similarly, service and middleware providers focus exclusively on their strengths. To that end, no chain should strive to do something that theyâre not equipped for.
That said, itâs why thereâs a separation of things like engineering and foundation in chains. If the job of the foundation is to govern and bring growth to the chain, then how do you define âgrowthâ? Well, as a chain, you define that via adoption. Which means dApps and utility which bring people (needed for growth) to the chain. And do this, you need copious amounts of money and talent. The latter two are why we have a series of zombie chains littering the [blockchain] landscape because you can have the best tech but nobody will use it if 1) they donât know about it 2) they donât have an incentive or use case for it.
How is ARB going to support gaming so that itâs sustainable and with upside for the DAO?
Short of giving money out and wishing on a prayer, none of those things are achievable due to all the aforementioned dependencies and insurmountable challenges that come with gaming. Neither the foundation nor the DAO proper can be expected to reasonably perform any of the functions required of a publishing arm. So, whatâs left? Treat it as marketing BD and with incentives. Which is basically a âhands offâ grants program with minimal entry requirements front-loaded with the usual checks and balances. In other words, no different from how the pre-existing ARB grants already work.
Hereâs how I would do it. This is only for mind-mapping and can be revised as-needed.
SETUP
Foundation sets up a grant program similar to STIPP e.g. Gaming Catalyst Program (GCP)
Fund the aforementioned grant program with a $200M test-run
$200M (converted to whatever $ARB is trading at) test-run fund is more than sufficient for indie and AA games. Depending on the success or failure of the inaugural run, this can be automatically replenished every 12-18 months or so as-needed.
Issue the grant (in full) to a separate corp entity (off-shore or not, doesnât matter) with multi-sigs etc. Lets call it GCP Group
This entity would be completely separate from the foundation and run by people also separate from the foundation. DAOs donât work for stuff like this. So, donât even bother with that noise.
For this, put out a 1099 (work-for-hire) notice, then ask for submissions within a set period (e.g. 14 days).
Youâre basically looking for people with game industry experience in a development/management role. These are the types of people who not only understand games, but who can also understand precisely what a game dev is saying to them. Given all the recent layoffs in the industry, there are dozens - if not hundreds - of qualified people that fit this role; though most have no intentions of coming to Web3.
After the application term expires, filter through all the applicants and pick 5 people (advisors) from the pool. From that pool, designate 1 person (the most experienced, accomplished etc) as core lead for the group.
Hire with a salary cap of $10K - $25K (paid monthly in $ARB directly to their wallet) based on experience, expertise etc. and for a 12-month (this is a 1099 gig, renewable as-needed) term. This is likely a part-time gig in which youâre basically a glorified producer type babysitter.
You absolutely want game devs who have actually worked on and shipped commercial games. No exceptions. And none of that âI worked on WoW; though I was just the water boyâ. If your name isnât on the list of credits for having been in a development (actual design, coding etc) role of a shipped game, youâre not getting in. No exceptions.
Their monthly fees are paid from the grant - not the foundation. They also setup their own expenses to include legal, admin etc. I would suggest that this groupâs budget be set at $2M a year, which would cover any/all operating expenses.
NOTE: Any applicant already part of the ARB foundation, its partners, publishers etc. are automatically disqualified. No exceptions. The reason for this should be obvious; so I wonât spell it out and risk it being taken out of context.
I wonât go into any of the standard setup for ops which include things like multi-sig, best practices, hiring third-parties as-needed etc. But the group needs a specific multi-sig wallet which is used solely for revenue generation.
BUILD
Now you have 5 people sitting on a $200M grant. Lets go spend it!
Setup criteria for games which will be reviewed and funded. I like this part of your missive above. So, I will adopt it in some regard.
To be clear, you absolutely want to attract the best of the best, the cream of the crop games which have an inkling of success within. As we note, 90% of them will fail - but we donât care about that; and youâll see why that is.
Each project must submit the following (the group above should provide a template)
Game overview (no need for a design doc as thatâs too in-depth and patently boring). Go read Ellaâs pitch deck notes to help with your submission via the aforementioned template
Game tokenomics doc
Team Info (if itâs an established team, corp etc. then all you need is the lead and nobody else)
Dev schedule (not to exceed +18 months from date of grant submission) /w clear KPI milestones (tranche payments will be based on these)
Use of funds (clear outline). This has to be separate and must be commensurate with the scope of the game and team e.g. nobody is going to give you a $1M grant just so you can go make a $250K game and spend the rest on meme coins or a Lambo.
GTM plan
SUBMISSION CRITERIA AND GRANTS
Phase 1 - Early Stage
You have a game idea that youâve been toying with, then [foolishly] decided that you were going to make a commercial go of it because you believe your game to be in the 10% thatâs totally going to make it. Right! Come on down!
â You have everything required in the grant template, somewhat playable prototype etc.
â Release within 18 months
â Grant Amount: $500K to $2M
â 70/30 rev split w/ GCP group for 12 months
â 2% of [unlocked at TGE] token allocation (if any) goes to GCP group to be airdropped to DAO
Phase 2 - Alpha | Beta
Youâre experienced, already ran through the game dev gauntlet, have a game in progress, and need funding for the absolutely insane last mile that never seems to draw near. You have a previously shipped game either solo, in a team, at a corp, whatever. Doesnât matter if it succeeded or failed - not your problem. You worked on a game. It shipped. Your name is in the credits.
â You have everything required in the grant template, playable alpha | beta etc.
â Release within 18 months
â Grant Amount: $2M to $4M
â 70/30 rev split w/ GCP group for 24 months
â 2% of [unlocked at TGE] token allocation (if any) goes to GCP group to be airdropped to DAO
Phase 3 - Release Candidate / Final Work Product
Youâre way past those n00bs up in phase 1&2. You have a game - an actual freaking game - thatâs over 90% completed, bugs galore even, but youâre definitely going to make it - this time; big boy pants and everything.
â You have everything required in the grant template, playable game in final Beta or RC state etc.
â Release within 6-8 months
â Grant Amount: $4M to $6M
â 70/30 rev split w/ GCP group for 36 months
â 2% of [unlocked at TGE] token allocation (if any) goes to GCP group to be airdropped to DAO
Phase 4 - Migration
You have a 100% completed game, Web2 or Web3, doesnât matter. You have front-loaded all the costs of dev, but now you want to come to ARB but need a little help with the expense and expertise of migrating over. The GCP Group would love to see you migrate your game over to the ecosystem and to help you do that. By working with TreasureDAO, Helika etc. you have a dedicated team of experts to help with the transition.
â You have everything required in the grant template, playable game in release state etc.
â Deployment on ARB within 4-6 months
â Grant Amount: Up to $6M
â No rev split with GCP Group
â 2% of [unlocked at TGE] token allocation (if any) goes to GCP group to be airdropped to DAO
RUN
GCP Group isnât a publisher and shouldnât even pretend to be one. Itâs basically a glorified BD team of experienced gaming people.
So, now we have GCP Group of 5 people running through submissions, and figuring out how to spend $200M - fer real (not like those other guys who claim to have these massive funds when in fact itâs just a ploy to get you to go talk to them - and nobody on the planet that you know of, ever got money from them. Yeah, those guys) to the benefit of the ARB ecosystem.
The key here is that, with those amounts and a great GCP Group team, youâre looking at funding a large number of diverse (from all genres) quality games from experienced devs who can actually build and deploy product. Heck, if you come across 25 games of great quality and team, and you give each $5M, well, do the math.
As GCP is going to be getting 30% revenue from deployed (at any stage) games, it can either stake that revenue and make some gains or just recycle it into its annual expenses.
Each gameâs approved funding is paid out in achievable milestone based tranches which, from grant approval to release candidate and final deployment release, should span the presented dev schedule and paid out in 4-6 tranches, with the final being the largest - except for an established team which implies less risk. No milestone delivery, no payment. After two missed milestones, itâs game over - and youâre out of the program.
In fact, for established teams with shipped games, track record etc. you can give them the full grant in equal monthly or quarterly tranches. So, for such a team, a $5M grant for a 12 month dev cycle would get paid in equal monthly tranches. These are the guys you absolutely WANT to come to GCP for funding.
This could absolutely work. The community obviously trusts (I expect that they do) the Arb Foundation due to their current track record. I mean, look no further than the treasury, the tech etc. And so, there should be no concern about an initiative like this being taken out of the hands of the emotions and angst that tend to come with DAO voting etc.
Lastly - and this important. Having 5 people in GCP means that they all get to pick from a pool of, say, 4 games they like. So, lets assume, 20 games are now in the running. From that pool, each team member gets to vote (Y|N) for each one. The games with the highest (5) votes, get to go first. Then you do it all over again as time moves on. The key here is not to sit on $200M that youâre not spending. So, grants should be awarded literally every freaking week - nonstop - until all the money allocated for the games is gone. Then you sit, wait, and watch it all fall apart - while hoping and praying that at least 10% of the funded games make it - and succeed. But they donât even have to succeed. They just have to make it to release and be parked on the ARB chain.
One thing that I would like to add involves the teams who have come on this journey and who, like yourself and others, in their own way have brought Arbitrum to where it is today. That would be these guys previously called out in your OP.
Theyâre mostly sitting on catalogs of underperforming games or games which donât stand a snowball in hell chance of survival. Donât take my word for it, go ahead and ask for the engagement and revenue metrics.
So, where do they fit in? Simple. Have them run their games (new or old) through GCP using the above criteria. For one thing, what if thereâs a good game thatâs not getting traction due to lack of marketing funds, outreach etc? Simple, send them to TreasureDAO or Helika where, via GCP, they can get a grant used to pay TreasureDAO, Helika etc. to build a robust marketing and outreach plan.
In fact, now that I think about it, making these groups a part of the GCP grant process provides a launchpad of experience for on-boarding Web2 devs coming to Web3 and who are literally lost in the narrative.
I would even go one step further and mandate that any team getting GCP grants must plan to allocate a minimum of 10% of their funding to be paid (by GCP) directly to the select groups like Treasure, Helika etc. who then create a plan (submitted to GCP) as required. This âadvisoryâ role could handle things ranging from GTM to tokenomics and community outreach. In fact, I mention this because I have such a group working with me on my Web3 projects - and they do everything. All I do is write code, manage my teams, show my face on calls as-needed etc. I donât deal with any of the noise.
If youâre wondering why Iâm not suggesting that GCP hire them or advisors to do the above, itâs because that wonât work to the benefit of the GCP or those partners. So, it has to be done on a case by case basis. And in doing so, for example, Helika could be managing 5 funded projects and getting paid for 5, instead of being paid a fixed sum to manage 5 projects while not having the resources to do so. More funds means more resources.
Aside from rewarding the loyalty of these groups and their builders, making them a part of this GCP process not only helps with optics, good will etc, but it also helps with filtering games on a âfirst lookâ basis. e.g. If someone asked me today which Web3 publisher or group to approach about their game, the first words out of my mouth would be âWhy do you need a third-party? You know you can just deploy yourself, right?â And if they say they want funding, I would then direct them to the angels and VC investors that I know and trust. I would never - ever - send them to a chain or a âWeb3 pseudo publisher/shopâ or a DAO of any kind. Ever. In fact, funny story. A guy (I wonât out him, but heâs welcome to do so himself) who worked on one of my games some years back, reached out to me on TG a few days ago after reading my first post here. Why? He knows me. Heâs worked for me. I explained to him why going directly to the Arb Foundation, let alone the DAO, for a grant of the size they were seeking, was a lesson in futility. So, yes, those guys are out there - all looking for a way in. And something like GCP - done properly - will absolutely attract the right game devs.
And if the GCP grant agreement says they have to deploy and stay on ARB, then it creates an ecosystem that just builds and grows. If any grantee wants to leave, ofc theyâre free to do so; but theyâre still liable for that 30% to GCP, regardless.
Itâs going to take time because making games is a long, hard and arduous process. But, for these kinds of money in my suggestions above, chances are there will be so many quality games in phase 2&3 that GCP wouldnât even be able to go through all submissions in order to determine the best ones to take a risk on.
BUILD ERRORS
Right. Lets just ignore everything I just wrote, and instead, you, @karelvuong, @Soby and any one of the super stars at Helika, go ask the Arb Foundation for $200M; and use it to go build a proper Web3 Games Publishing Group - parked on ARB. I canât be involved in any of that because I have my own teams and commitments to look after. But I would gladly serve in an advisory role as-needed because from what I have seen and heard thus far, you guys absolutely, positively, need an [experienced] game dev and outsider to help this along.
I donât think separating this any further is a good idea because that means all the work in this thread gets forgotten (I mean, look at the non-existent metrics in this thread itself), only to perhaps be regurgitated anew elsewhere.
Discourse has an edit tracker (the small pencil on the top-right). So, I would recommend just completely wiping (donât delete it; just select + delete the text) that first post contents, and posting your new thoughts in it. Then, anyone who wants to see how it started compared to where it is now, can use the pencil to view the diffs.
This is your gig, and I donât make the rules. So, respectfully, this is just a suggestion.
I see very reasonable arguments and a detailed approach.
Thank you for your detailed comments, as a game lover, it was very interesting for me to read all this.
And I completely agree now that the amounts allocated for games should be huge if we adhere to the concept you indicated.
What if we consider not creating games from scratch, but try to finance updates to existing games with a huge audience such as Battle Royales, MMORPG and try to implement it? The costs will be significantly lower, as well as a very experienced partner in marketing and game creation.
@cp0x Thanks for reading that massive wall of text.
Good question. I actually did consider this approach. However, I just assumed it would fall under phase 3. But having read your post, and in thinking about it some more, I was inspired to add phase 4 which I believe covers it in a clearer fashion.
As to your question about âcreating games from scratchâ, the key metrics here are adoption and growth. Itâs better for the ecosystem if these games and the devs are somewhat incubated within ARB and to help grow here. There is a reason that console manufacturers spend so much money curating games by great teams. Once you end up on a console, youâre likely to continue developing for that platform due to the relationships with the dev team, consumers etc. Never underestimate the power of familiarity and loyalty.
One thing to bear in mind is that it isnât easy to migrate from Web2 to Web3. Trust me, Iâve been working on that since 2021. And itâs not even about engineering, but about navigating all the nuances of Web3, the key people, the communities - the noise etc. So, going to established games and offering them money to migrate isnât as simple as it sounds. Especially since theyâre already established. What good is offering them money when they can make that same amount of money - or even more - without ever getting involved in Web3?
Also, what a lot of people donât seem to realize is that there really is no âWeb2 v Web3â when it comes to games. Itâs just an approach to distribution and a tech stack. So, for games, thereâs an inherent overlap of gamers. So, youâre not going to make games specifically for âWeb3 gamersâ and expect to yield the same financial and community benefits as a comparable Web2 game. Itâs near impossible. And thatâs why most of us who have games that have sold millions of units, made lots of money etc. just lol when we see Web3 games celebrating inconsequential metrics like TVL, DAW et al and which donât say anything about âhow much money they are making - net revâ. A Web3 game celebrating 100K users but havenât even made $0.10c on the Dollar, is a flop by any Web2 metric - depending on the game. A good indie game by a 4-person team that cost $500K to make, depending on the game, probably makes its money back with about +10% ROI. Thatâs not a lot. And itâs why you will hardly see more than 1 or 2 games from over 95% of the indie devs and studios. Most operate at a loss, and subsequently disappear to go work for someone else after experiencing the dream - even for a brief moment.
So, in my experience, attracting and curating key devs and their games at these formative stages is the best approach. For example, phase 4 is basically giving money to an experienced team to come over. Normally, thatâs a marketing spend and is part of the cost of doing business. You have to pay to play - and Web3 doesnât change those rules of engagement. Saying âWe have better tech, low fees etcâ isnât enough these days. Know why? Because all the key players already have all that - and more. So, what are you - a chain - going to compete on and for? For example, I would bet dimes to donuts that if my friends over at Neon (Shrapnel) approached a chain and asked for $6M to migrate their game over - even as multi-chain - the chain would jump through hoops to throw $6M their way. Consequently, my other friends over at Kap Games recently migrated their Captain & Co game over to Blast. Thereâs a reason for stuff like that - and it will keep on happening unless the ARB foundation and you guys in the DAO start getting serious about games and doing whatever it takes to attract - and keep - good games and their teams within the ecosystem. Everyone else (see IMX, AVAX, MATIC et al) is doing just that - and not just because they have people with gaming experience within their teams, but also because they realize that - since the advent of the micro-processor age - games have always led the way to the adoption of anything that remotely whiffs of entertainment prospects.
I am just one guy, but I have a voice and a wealth of experience. And so, I share these thoughts from the perspective of a gamer (first) and game dev (second) who has been around since the very early beginnings which even predated online games.
There are a few points that do require further discussion, Iâm 80% there with @thedereksmart.
I understand the rationale behind preferring game developers who have successfully shipped commercial gamesâit suggests a certain level of expertise and accomplishment. However, I find myself increasingly skeptical that this criterion alone is a reliable predictor of future success.
My recent experience has led me to reconsider the value of profiles emerging from major mobile gaming publishers like Scopely and King. In fact, I used to consider gaming background a must and this year the (new) best performing profiles on my team, do not have itâŚ
While undoubtedly skilled, many such individuals tend to lack the adaptable, entrepreneurial spirit crucial for thriving in start-up environments. Moreover, their salary expectations often reflect their backgrounds in established companies, and a genuine interest in Web3 innovation is frequently absent.
This isnât to say that we shouldnât strive to attract top talent from the gaming industry to Arbitrum. Indeed, establishing a Gaming Catalyst Program to entice game developers is a strategy I wholeheartedly support. As I mentioned in my previous comment, we are behind scheduleâŚ
However, becoming overly fixated on specific qualifications or experiences at the outset could hinder our agility and responsiveness, especially when competing platforms (see Polygon for instance) are rapidly securing talent.
In summary, while industry experience is valuable, our focus should also include a candidateâs adaptability, enthusiasm for Web3, and alignment with start-up culture. This approach will ensure we build a team not just of proven professionals, but of innovators ready to navigate the unique challenges and opportunities of the Web3 gaming space.
Regarding development costs, the reality in the mobile gaming world is highly variable.
For instance, the hypercasual genre, with offerings from developers like Voodoo, Homa Games, or Lion Studios, illustrates this point well. Such games can be developed in about a month by a team in Turkey for less than $30k, often recouping their investment within days. On the opposite end are AAA titles that have consumed over three years of development and budgets exceeding $10 million, only to fail upon release. This discrepancy raises questions about the efficacy of the development and publishing teams behind these costly ventures.
Ultimately, what significantly influences a projectâs success is the leadershipâspecifically, the Game Manager (GM) in the industry. Their vision and how itâs executed through project milestones can make all the difference, regardless of the budget size.
Deploying a game on your own is indeed an option, but the likelihood of successfully attracting a Web3-knowledgeable player base on your own is slim. This reality underscores the unique value offered by publishers like Treasure, who have cultivated a community of Web3 enthusiasts always on the lookout for their next gaming adventure. Their ability to engage players through effective cross-promotion is invaluable.
In my view, the real challenge for platforms like Arbitrum lies in bridging the gap between Web2 and Web3 gaming in such a seamless way that players transition without even realizing it. This approach not only capitalizes on the universal appeal of gaming but also positions it as a pivotal catalyst for broader crypto adoption. Success in this arena starts with the fundamental ingredient of any gameâs appeal: fun.
Before we can entice Web2 players into the Web3 space, we need to ensure we have compelling, enjoyable games for them to play.
All in all, without wanting to end up with another wall of text Iâm 80% there with @thedereksmart. However, as Iâve emphasized in my previous post and earlier comments, itâs crucial that we take action promptly.
I understand what you mean, but I probably need to expand on my reasoning for this.
That being, the people in the GCP Group absolutely need to be able to understand game development in order to properly assess the viability of a [game] project, the milestones, what they mean, the costs etc. If not, then they would have no choice but to hire external advisors for that. I donât find that to be efficient nor a good use of funds and resources.
Even in gaming where we tend to sometimes have execs with no previous gaming background (e.g. EA, Activision et al), they take the role of CEO who already have their gaming and game dev team within the corp. The GCP Group wonât have that - unless they either hire additional people or external advisors. That was the primary impetus for my outlining that criteria.
That this initiative is focused on gaming, it is important that the GCP Group focus specifically on hiring those types of people who have that sort of [gaming] experience. But note that thereâs nothing that says the GCP Group couldnât have one of the types that you mentioned be part of the 5-person team. Besides, depending on who ends up front-running this, if not @Djinn, I am sure that they would have already considered your [valid] suggestions in this regard as well.
True. And I previously mentioned this point as well. But itâs a lot more nuanced that that. A small indie team, running lean and mean on $30K, is likely to have a great idea - executed well enough - and which a competing AA team with $300K has no insight into. This is specifically why we see - time and time again - the leaps and bounds success of indie teams.
That said, my idea for this initiative isnât just about costs, but also about experience and expertise. Itâs why I laid out the suggested criteria for which games make the cut and thus get funding.
Also, the failures of AA or AAA games isnât usually just down to the efficacy (?) of the development and publishing teams. Thereâs a lot that happens for a game to fail - regardless of cost. One of those primary reasons is the crazy games market itself whereby even the best reviewed, best designed game is likely to fail for patently unknown reasons. Happens far more regularly that the casual onlooker knows.
I mostly agree with this. My only dissenting opinion would be that we need to stop thinking about and catering to âWeb3 enthusiastsâ because itâs a bubble - thatâs not growing; at least not quickly enough. It just isnât. Every single metric that Iâve seen thus far shows that the growth is neither organic nor sustainable because itâs usually the same gamers in the same exact churn. Itâs precisely why Treasure, for all their expertise and experience, like Steam, EGS et al are currently sitting on a catalog of underperforming third-party games. And more to my previous point; itâs not that the games on Treasure are bad, itâs mostly that nobody outside the churn cares about them. Especially when there are far better games outside of the Web3 sphere.
Also, when you look at Steam, EGS, GoG, GmG etc. you see a massive number of games - most of them self-published - but which donât actually have traction, let alone make money on those platforms. Let me share an example of what happened to an indie dev over the weekend whereby she released her game - having worked on it for almost 10 years - only for it to be front-run on the Steam charts when EA dumped a slew of legacy game re-releases. That indie game is basically DOA regardless of whether or not it is a good or bad game.
IMO, stigma aside, the challenge in Web3 gaming has nothing to do with tech, but rather with the games themselves. Most trad gamers diving into Web3 have found games that are neither fun nor comparable to what they were already playing. I have long argued (even with Yat over at Animoca, who is a staunch advocate of Web3 gaming - bar none) that P2E let alone ownership of game assets is not the incentive that most people think it is. I actually wrote a blog about this specific issue back in Jan.
So, when you have a situation whereby âWeb3 gamesâ arenât attracting trad gamers, you end up with this Web3 gaming bubble that comprises of only those gamers who buy into the whole concept of âmaking moneyâ instead of âhaving funâ. Itâs why, for the most part, even poor Web3 games tend to have an audience - some never actually âplayedâ them as theyâre mostly focused on farming assets and tokens they can sell. This has been - and imo always will be - the dividing factor. Do we make games for Web3 for the fun or for the money. And what happens when a ânot funâ game stops yielding monetary gain? Gamers stop playing - then move on to the next churn. The P2E concept coupled with the whole concept of owning stuff you can sell is what has Web3 in this insurmountable rut which only a good game with good P2E mechanics can overcome.
Look at Yuga. Every single game theyâve thus far released has failed in terms of adoption outside their IP bubble. Last month, they pivoted (I wrote about that too) in their attempt to attract trad gamers outside of their bubble. Every aspect points to that being a failed initiative because - again - the DDU game is still gated in some way and caters mostly to the same bubble. And it wasnât even that game that signaled a pivot. Theyâve now flat-out said that theyâre not even making a trad MMO âgameâ - which is what most were expecting. Instead, itâs now looking like a virtual world akin to Nifty Island (which has also failed spectacularly) rather than Fortnite or Roblox. I suspect that in the end it will just be a re-make of Active Worlds (if you remember this one, congrats, you got old) or its ilk. Thatâs not a bad thing because theyâre building for the people who gave them $300M to make the Otherside dream. Except for the part where, due to time constraints and tech challenges, that dream has now changed - and most of their hodlers arenât particularly happy about it at all.
The minute people understand and accept that âWeb3 gamingâ isnât likely to achieve the lofty heights of trad gaming - which has had a decades head start - the more it will be obvious that catering to the Web3 bubble only works if youâve found a way to recoup your costs YoY. Itâs the same challenge that indie devs like me have whereby itâs juggle: Do we spend $50K making a game knowing you can recoup it easily from a built-in audience or go for broke with a $500K (assuming you even have that to spare) game and hope for the best?
The challenge isnât actually in âbridgingâ the gap - as none actually exists now that on-boarding in Web3 games is a seamless experience that most games have adopted. The challenge is in making a fun game, and one in which the Web3 elements are unobtrusive in nature.
Also, bridging the gap isnât a challenge for Arbitrum or any chain because theyâre neither publishers/distributors nor game devs. Itâs simply not their job. Theyâre just a tech stack - akin to a console publisher - looking to create initiatives for game devs to build on their chain. And in order to do that, they have to give devs a reason to actually want to build here because, as I mentioned previously, devs no longer primarily care about a chainâs tech stack, gas fees etc because all of those concerns have been mitigated in the past year - and will only get better as time moves on. Thatâs why tech is no longer a reasonable advantage.
Over the weekend, I wrote about IMX. Thus far, they have over 270 (!) games on the network; 75 of which were on-boarded just this past qtr alone. And I personally know quite a few devs who now build there. You know some of the reasons why they choose IMX over, say, AVAX? Funding, the support team - and primarily the fact that IMX was created by gamers who absolutely know and understand what game devs are looking for in order to be successful on their platform. I mean, right now, as I type this, I am aware of no less than 3 teams moving off ARB, one of which, as I mentioned previously, has already migrated to Blast.
Arbitrum has lagged so far behind in gaming, that the very concept of catching up is going to be an insurmountable challenge that no amount of funding is going to fix in the short-term. I am all but certain that the foundation knows this. And ofc Dan, Karel and all the authors of this initiative are well aware of this simple fact. And thatâs why the core of my suggestions for the GCP is one that is bold enough in its intent that, at the very least, attracting experienced builders should be the core focus. Trying to cater to $30K games isnât going to do anything other than churn out games that likely nobody cares about - let alone plays. Then, whatâs the point?
Absolutely my point; and one which I think all of us engaged in this space can agree with.
lol. I find that a wall of text is better than no text at all, or text that are inconclusive, thus leading to even more text. In all my years, I have found that itâs better to have a wall of text in one place, than a set of texts which are likely to have people lose track rather than focus on the core. Then again, among other things that require writing a lot, Iâm a game designer and dev, so Iâm used to writing - a lot. Plus, I type fast. Really fast.
Love this exchange btw, and your comments are on point. I hope that others will opine on this topic because, as I said previously, though I have nothing at stake here, Danâs efforts to thrust the community into action should set the stage for action - not inaction.
So @Djinn has put up the Catalyze Gaming Ecosystem Growth on Arbitrum proposal for discussion. I understand now what he meant earlier, as in âwhich will be published to the forum in a separate post.â I didnât realize that he was referring to putting up the actual proposal.
I am not sure why you would say players do not have control over their game assets and how can you miss the ROI for Axie Infinity? You do understand that gamers, love engaging games, donât you?
Are there any real, fun games built on Arbitrum yet? DeFi is the biggest ponzi that needs constant inflow of liquidity to stay afloat and DeFi masquerading as games are not the kind of games we should be building on Arbitrum.
You have not seen the power of gaming in crypto yet, no one has.
From the very beginning, this team has shown that they love their community. In todayâs realities of the crypto world, the community is everything. That is why the Xai is deeply etched in my heart. I am very glad I came across it. Their games are something incredible. I am sure that this year is the year of the XAI GAMES! Thanks to the team for everything they created for us! We are with you! Canât see more games. P.S MMORPG)))
).
Iâm 80% there with 