Ah yes, that’s been the case for some time now due to the crypto down-turn. Even though things appear to be picking up, lessons learned from back in 2020 when investors threw copious amounts of money at teams that didn’t know the first thing about making games, have served as a wake-up call whereby it’s a lot harder now to raise funds for making games because investors are looking a lot more closer than they otherwise would.
That said, while I now understand your sentiments regarding growth and traction under GCP, that doesn’t change the inherent risks that will still be there because GCP isn’t going to mitigate those risks outside of normal process. At least to any meaningful degree because teams looking for money and/or guidance isn’t a measure of failure nor success.
I see. I don’t recall seeing any of that mentioned in the education thread or the proposal itself. It’s possible that you know more behind-the-scenes stuff than I do. Nevertheless, the inference above is just as I have indicated repeatedly; in that - as designed and proposed - the GCP is seeking to operated like a publisher/distributor. And that’s no mean feat.
Absolutely agreed. I have repeatedly said that Treasure and XAI cannot be relied upon to carry the burden of curation and growth on Arbitrum because, centralization aside, the GCP needs to be able to curate a diverse and eclectic suite of games such that their growth makes Arbitrum the focal point.
Agreed. I actually mentioned Upptic, Windwalk etc. as part of some of my missives in a bid to illustrate that the success of a game is a lot more than just doling out money.
I should note that Helika just announced a $50MM accelerator fund to enhance metrics such as:
- User acquisition
- Engagement
- Retention
- Growth
Ah yes, my point was not to say that GCP should aspire to that. I was attempting to point out that those impressive metrics are indicators of trad gamer engagement, and the impact that such games can have on an ecosystem - that being Fortnite. In turn, curating engaging games for Arbtirum lies in the ability to attract and retain games which would be a growth and retention funnel within its ecosystem proper.
I have been formulating some ideas, but nothing yet that I am comfortable sharing publicly. We can discuss further on Telegram if you so choose. Do feel free to ping me there: thedereksmart
That said, yesterday, Steven posted something that resonated with me as an indie dev.
“Some are repeating the same mistakes again this cycle. If a chain’s sales pitch is “build here because we’ll pay you” that’s not sustainable, lacks character and should be a 
for devs. These chains may be up for an inning or two but they’ll lose the game. You can’t buy soul.”
Seeing as you’ve responded to several of my posts, I can conclude that you’ve seen me echoing some of these very same sentiments. He’s absolutely correct; and this is something that I hope the GCP doesn’t engage in whereby games get funded as a way to get them over, rather than based on merit and prospects of success.
From my perspective as an entrepreneur, investor, and indie dev, I would be more inclined to refer to the standards and metrics from trad gaming - then assume the worst case scenario due to the Web3 stigma. And so, if every GCP funded game makes it to release, that’s a win of sorts because most games don’t even get that far. It’s why, in the education thread, I had outlined some suggestions for various game stages which then determines the funding cap for same. It’s specifically why other chains can tout their list of games, despite the fact that most of them are underperforming and haven’t yield the [financial] metrics which would be worthy of being deemed a success. Recall that I had pointed out that financial success is the only metrics worth focusing on.
So, to me:
- If a GCP funded game actually makes it to release, that’s a win
- If they end up making money, to the extent that they are paying for their monthly operational costs, that’s a bonus
- If they make enough to give back to the GCP so that money can be recycled to on-board other aspiring games, then we can all pack and get ready for the [hype] train to Valhalla.
Incidentally, Sam (Horizon/Sequence) posted his GDC recap which included his usual brand of truth telling. This gem stands out:
Perhaps you misunderstood the point that I was making. Let me quote the entire thing again for context:
“While I had already pointed out that the GCP wasn’t going to be a thing for several months, and that even games currently in production aren’t likely to deploy inside of 12 months, finding ways to reach those devs in the interim, is probably a good idea.”
The point that I was making there has nothing to do with games currently building on Arbitrum. I was making a broad statement about games in dev, and which don’t even have Arbitrum on their radar. And so, given how long it would take for GCP to get up and running - a point that I already made, and for which Karel had his MVC idea - it’s worth finding a way to reach out to those devs in the interim, instead of waiting for the GCP to be up an running before those efforts (by way of application filings) get underway. If not, those games would likely build elsewhere, thus reducing the pool of [worthy] games to curate from in the short term. Games take a long time to make; and not all teams are making 6-12 month “throwaway” games which are usually devoid of any intrinsic value.
But that’s not up to the GCP. And games - good games - take some time to make. Attempting to setup the GCP to only consider games which don’t span 12 months is a recipe for disaster. It also says more about the quality of games, than it does about their ability to succeed.
Again, I should point out this is specifically why I provided these suggested guidelines based on decades of experience in the biz. I would expect that the Catalyst Venture Team would adopt best practices along these lines in their selection/curation of games.
There is a measure of risk mitigation based on this industry standard guidance criteria. e.g. a game in year 2 of a 5 year term, at a cost of $5MM, can’t be compared to one that’s 5 months into a 12 month term, at a cost of $250K. But there’s absolutely no way to gauge the success or failure of those two games; except to say that the former likely represents a much larger and well-designed scope, than the latter.
While that may be accurate based the game devs and games that you’re looking at, I can safely say that is absolutely not the norm. What you’re implying there not only doesn’t take into account important factors such as game type, game scope, team size, team expenses etc but it also ignores the fact that all chains aren’t equal, tools and languages different, smart contracts - even those which may need to be migrated - all take time, the latter costs money, and testing isn’t something you can do overnight.
That said, it is highly unlikely that games looking deploy on Arbitrum are OK with a $10K per month spend to assist in deployment costs, let alone migration costs - both of which are different things.
If someone asked me - today - to migrate either of my games to Arbitrum, and I tell them it would cost me up to $250K, and they asked me why I can’t do it for $10K per month, that would be a very short conversation. And yes, I’ve had those very same conversations before; and so, I am speaking from experience.
This whole “we can/should do it cheaper and quicker” narrative is precisely why - today - gaming in Web3 is in dire straights. Deploying a game on a chain isn’t just a matter of “put it on da blockchain”, and cheap doesn’t always mean better.
I invite you to ask the Crypto Unicorns team what it’s costing them to migrate from Polygon to XAI. I can all but guarantee that it’s not “2 x $5K a month”.
Absolutely agree; and I’ve said those very same things before because it’s important to factor in. For my part, it’s why I’m more concerned about the professional makeup of the Council and the Catalyst team, than I am about the games being curated. It all starts with the team - and even the best teams aren’t infallible.