I have pointed this out as well, and my guess is that this is how grants will be doled out. However, setting dev milestones is rife with challenges; and most game devs are notoriously terrible at it. So, coming up with achievable and sensible milestone based grant payments - again - depends on the Catalyst group having knowledgeable people who understand game dev and all its nuances. And it’s why I will gladly help out in this regard, whether or not I deploy games on ARB.
1 Like
Indeed. However, I think the proposal is setting aside $400MM to curate games; not that it’s going to be spent all at once or on a few games with massive budgets. In fact, over in the educational post, I specifically highlighted the proposed budgets as being inadequate if the goal is to attract quality teams and their games.
Agreed. But this is specifically what the proposal is seeking to do. Except, it’s not targeted at just indies, as that’s an even greater risk.
All of this can be done within the GCP as it’s just marketing, metrics, and process. Adding another layer (gaming domain allocator?) - or a glorified focus group - isn’t going to achieve the expected results. I mean, the GCP could very well hire Helika or even Upptic, Windwalk, Naavik etc. and come up with sufficient metrics for guidance and pulse checking in any gaming areas they want.
I believe that’s all part of the GCP process. I don’t believe that just because something isn’t mentioned in the - already detailed proposal - means that it’s not part of the process. For example, I don’t think that the GCP is going to dole out entire grant sums without milestone based tranches. However, at the same time, unless you’re doing something different from what others are doing, and which is more attractive to game devs, there’s little to no incentive to deploy on ARB. And so, adding what some would see as adequate safeguards which work in other industries outside gaming, may only serve to not only hamper the process but to also deter devs who already have a large pool of chains to deploy on.
Very true. And it’s why the key to success has to be orchestrated via a fine balancing act by the GCP in how grant deals are structured.
Most of the chain deals that I have come across are either flat-out grants with no expectations of performance or venture deals with some ROI down the road. The GCP has to determine which route to take; but my guess is that even if it took the latter [ROI] route, structured properly and in a fair win-win manner, it would go a long way because game devs are already aware that in all cases they have to split their winnings.
The intrinsic issue here is that there are several factors that play into a win-win type ROI deal. For example, deploying on Steam means 30% of revenue, while deploying on EGS means 12% revenue.
Right there, you’ve given up a sizeable portion of your revenue to be on a platform.
And you don’t even have to deploy a game on either platform, although even with the saturation and discovery challenges on both, it’s still better to deploy on either than to not. And so, when taking ROI splits into account, one should be mindful of the fact that a dev isn’t likely to agree to any deal which doesn’t have a win-win concept. By nature, a vast majority of VC and publishing deals are highly exploitative. As a lifetime member of the IGDA, and a one-time president of a local chapter for many years, I have come across a vast number of deals which game devs ask my advisory (always free) on. You wouldn’t believe some of the deals that I have seen. In fact, I was once in that boat myself back when I first started out. And after my last deal concluded, I opted to self-publish. That was over two decades ago.
So, lets assume that games getting funding from the GCP plan to deploy on EGS (which, unlike Steam, allows Web3 games) . Right off the bat, that’s 12% of rev. When you factor in the game costs as well as the on-going (little known fact: most, if not all, Web3 games have on-going costs) operating costs, it’s easy to see that the financial pool shrinks - usually by a lot. So, a game seeking $250K funding, isn’t going to have the same expenses and constraints as one that seeks $1.5M. And this is why I outlined some grant budget thresholds and guidance over in this post because those are some of the things that a competent and experienced games BD team would be looking on a per deal basis.
Resources:
What would a VC arm at a chain do differently from actual VC firms, BD teams at chains - or the Catalyst venture team that would be hired by the Council for this proposal? I would say, nothing different. Other than to adhere to less restrictive rules which guide profitability.
It should be noted that, the $400MM aside, this is also a marketing spend of sorts because if/when this passes Tally, at best, it will spark inquiries. Prior to that, my guess is that serious devs haven’t exactly been pounding on the Arb Foundation doors for gaming grants - substantial or otherwise. Also, take a look at quest book. The dearth of games on ARB is due to the fact that game devs already know that, outside of Treasure - and now XAI, gaming isn’t happening on ARB to any meaningful extent. This proposal, as I see it, is key to changing that.
2 Likes
Savvy DAO votes FOR the “Catalyze Gaming Ecosystem Growth on Arbitrum”.
- Arbitrum is the home of DeFi but has an opportunity to become the home for gaming.
- A diversity of economies are paramount to creating a vibrant economy, DeFi and Gaming can build off each other and set the stage for other verticals.
- Shoutout to the individuals who worked tirelessly to push this through: especially @Djinn @karelvuong @Soby and @Helika.
Can’t wait for a game night!
1 Like
I’m the founder of BattleFly, one of the first games to launch on Arbitrum in the Treasure ecosystem (we started building in November 2021 and launched in March 2022). We are regularly in the top ten games on Arbitrum with 1,500+ DAUs. We support this proposal (and also are very grateful to the folks who have brought this proposal to life).
BattleFly wasn’t created with the intention of being a AAA game; our ambition was to explore whether a game that was more data-driven, strategic and financialized would be interesting to players. We have done a lot of experimentation over the past 2+ years across multiple game modes, and only with the release of Colosseum do we now feel like we have a version of the game that is fun, sustainable and “built for a web3 audience”.
Games take time, and game developers need the space to “learn new things” as they go. The traditional model for funding games is largely broken imho, because it has over-rotated towards investing in “sure bets” rather than “good teams and interesting ideas”. I don’t think we want to replicate the same problems that have led to large publishers becoming stale and predictable.
With all the layoffs that have happened in gaming over the past 18 months, there are some really talented people looking for their next move. I think if part of the grant program could be geared towards giving small (but experienced) teams with interesting ideas the space to build their first playable prototype, we could create a lot of buzz.
Yes, we want some big names to join Arbitrum and make big waves. But I hope we also attract a bunch of builders who want to use Arbitrum to reinvent gaming, not just copy existing ideas.
Thanks again to everyone who has helped stand up this proposal.
The Princeton Blockchain Club is (cautiously) voting FOR the Gaming Catalyst Program at the Snapshot stage.
The Arbitrum DAO should be concerned about how many other chains are deploying upwards of 9 figures towards gaming. Starknet’s Gaming Committee was just given 50m STRK (~$110m USD), and Immutable, King River Capital, and Polygon Labs formed a $100m USD gaming fund. There’s also a $3m USD gaming accelerator program for Optimism chains. Clearly other teams recognize that Web3 gaming could be a goldmine for adoption and revenue.
200m ARB is a pretty large ask. It’s interesting to think back to the STIP Backfund a while ago, which passed with significantly more friction over 1/10th of the current ask. We do acknowledge that the process of making a quality AAA title can get quite massive though - the speculated budget for the upcoming GTA VI is multiples higher than this whole proposal for example.
If we can launch a few games that appeal to the non-crypto crowd during this 2-year program, the increase in Arbitrum adoption will be more than worth it. Based on the way the Snapshot votes are going, it seems that other delegates think similiarly.
(I must admit, I am quite skeptical of crypto gaming. The gaming crowd is extremely hostile of crypto, and for good reason. If all I was exposed to was Logan Paul’s CryptoZoo and BAYC’s Dookey Dash, I’d write off the sector entirely. We also face pushback from marketplaces, such as Steam, which outright ban blockchain games. I don’t think it’s impossible to change this though, so I do have some hope. Having the next CS:GO or Genshin Impact on Arbitrum would be incredible.)
We will be doing further review before the onchain vote. Big thanks to everyone that contributed to this proposal though, as we’re glad to see something like this!
1 Like
Temp check through Snapshot almost done with 98%+ voted FOR.
When is the next action (on-chain vote through Tally)? Right after temp check or you wait for weeks to do that?
The below response reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re supportive of the proposal and as such we’ll be voting for it during the temp-check. We believe the Gaming Catalyst Program (GCP) is a strong signal to bringing more games to Arbitrum, which in turn help with mainstream adoption both of Arbitrum, but also of the broader Ethereum ecosystem.
Although we think the details on how the program should be executed are still being defined, we’re active in the discussion around the proposal and we’re offering our feedback in order to figure out the best way to execute it.
With our vote, which is a vote of confidence, we want to also invite every stakeholder to actively engage in the discussion surrounding the GCP as different perspectives can offer unique and valuable input.
To that end, we’re inviting people to our office hours (every Thursday at 4 pm UTC) so we can discuss the GCP and any points of concern that we can raise on your behalf. We’ll also be reaching out to some other delegates directly to get their opinion and feedback while the proposal moves through the governance process and toward an on-chain vote.
4 Likes
And so it came to pass. The temp check proposal has now passed. Next up, Tally. Congrats to @Djinn and the crew for putting this together, and for taking all suggestions and concerns into account.
Next up, Tally! No pressure though!
The timeline is up to Dan and the other authors. But my guess is that it shouldn’t take long to go up; especially since we already saw evidence that the temp check would pass with overwhelming support.
1 Like
The enthusiasm for web3 gaming is misplaced — the proposal is devoid of examples of commercially successful web3 games, because none exist. Every web3 game requires subsidization to function. This proposal aims to hand over hundreds of millions of dollars to an enterprise that will be fully centralized behind the whims of game developers, that will be easily drained by bots, and for which the use of funds will be extremely difficult to audit.
For those who support this proposal, I would strongly urge you to examine the financial performance of web3 games that have risen and dramatically fallen over the years, and how much money has already been wasted chasing something that is fundamentally incompatible with web3. These games are not decentralized, they are not fun, and most of all, they will not generate a return on investment.
gm all, I have voted in favor of this proposal at temperature check.
I think it’s worth trying to push the Arbitrum ecosystem into a vertical that will be important for Web3, and further boost the effort that Treasure, XAI, and other ecosystems have put in the last months and years.
I love that we are adopting a mindset of a venture studio, this can go a long way. However the chances of succeeding here are low, and we should expect a vast majority of the projects funded to actually not perform well. Genuine thanks to @thedereksmart for bringing some sound skepticism and counterpoints to the proposal.
This is a vote of confidence. Electing the right council will be key as they will have much greater power than other committees we created.
More details that would help to facilitate the final onchain vote:
Great to see some KPIs - I would encourage further details around them and expected milestones for the program.
I’d like to highlight to the DAO, that while other programs like the LTIP distribute incentives to users/partners who may not necessarily sell their tokens, this is a huge program that will apply considerable sell pressure to $ARB - All parties will sell tokens to pay for salaries and progress.
I want to hope that 2 years will be enough to demonstrate any ROI so we can then assess the overall impact of the program.
Let the Games begin!
1 Like
Difficult to argue with these sentiments because they highlight the fallacies of Web3 gaming - such as it is.
That said, I would argue that there are quite a few commercially successful Web3 games currently in operation. However, in my experience, the definition of gaming success depends a lot on the value proposition. For e.g. a game that cost $1M to make, and which recoups its costs, but subsequently fails down the road, doesn’t make it a failure. Yes - as I have repeatedly pointed out, a vast majority of games will fail. This problem isn’t restricted to Web3, though it’s a lot more pronounced given the added challenges of gaming.
If the GCP forks out $400MM to secure games, the reality is that it is unlikely to see an ROI of any kind, let alone even 30%. But once again, I have to point out that taking such a view is shortsighted because this proposal is more about getting more game devs to adopt the chain and for gamers to play those games. You have to ask how then does ARB benefit in that equation? It does in many ways but only - and only - if you look at it as a marketing expense and a growth vector. Does anyone here, and who is actually paying attention, see any DeFi growth in ARB, even without comparing to others? What is the purpose of the treasury. And please don’t say anything about staking because that’s as tangential as leaving money in a savings account without once being concerned about pesky things like yield, inflation etc.
Since the very beginning, gaming has always been the best way to gain adoption of any enterprise related to social engagement. If Blockchain was merely for DefI and similar, who do you think would be attracted to all these chains? You can only have so many banks - and most of them going on to fail or be bought out.
I would agree that gaming is “fundamentally incompatible with Web3” because I have said this for many years now. In fact, these past 48hrs, I’ve writing similarly in my X feed. But the flipside to this argument is that it’s more about the games themselves than it is about trying to shoehorn gaming into Web3. As an engineer, I admit that there’s no innovation in Web3 that warrants gaming of any kind being parked on it. All that talk about “owning” stuff is just a way to justify one thing over another; while P2E is precisely how we got to this very moment in time. Gamers, real gamers, don’t actually care about such things. But the promise of Web3 games as an alternate revenue source for everyone involved, can’t be understated. It’s a new frontier that’s basically a case of the emperor’s new clothes.
In my estimation, if good controls are put into place, experienced people hired, decent games curated, and the GCP doesn’t end up being a piggy bank for besties to loot via backdoor (these are more prevalent in Web3 than most think) deals, it can and will make an impact to the ARB ecosystem as a whole because growth is not just about gaming. And all this starts with who the voters put into Council positions, which then flows into who those people end up hiring. As I’ve said before, this initiative is basically a publishing/distribution/venture BD team. And that should be handled in much the same way that you would expect it to be handled if a VC gave $400MM to a startup. And that - all of that - is what everyone needs to pay attention to if/when this proposal passes Tally as most now expect that it will.
As I’ve said before, though I am unable to put my Web3 games through GCP because 1) I am already embedded in a chain, and as an indie studio, unexpected costs such as migration and associated expenses are a clear burden 2) it’s going to take a lot longer to get GCP up and running than most realize; I still maintain that this is a blue ocean opportunity for everyone involved, and so, experienced and aspiring devs can seize on this opportunity to not only try something new, but also to reach a whole new audience which would otherwise not know about their game. But rest assured, if I could, I would most certainly deploy on ARB - if only to prove the points that I have made thus far in terms of this being a blue ocean growth vector - if you have a good game and an experienced gaming team attached to it.
Even if I say so myself (do freel free to ask my peers), I have an exceptionally good track record when it comes to gaming insights and trends; and so, despite the greater than zero chances of GCP being an unmitigated disaster and a waste of $400MM, I believe that this is a remarkable opportunity to kickstart growth on ARB. The alternative is to just ride the wave to 0 because, and this is coming from a numbers guy btw, that’s precisely where every single Web3 platform is eventually headed. Grow or die. That’s how that usually works.
At the risk of ruffling feathers, I will say this again. ARB giving ApeCoin DAO $3MM to build ApeChain is the type of thing to raise concerns about; not GCP. But the thing is - and rightfully so - the AF doesn’t see $3MM grant as a risk or waste of funds - even when you consider the fact that the ApeCoin DAO, Yuga, and all their partners can very well afford to have built ApeChain if they wanted to. Why didn’t they? It’s not as if they didn’t have the funds to do it. I would guess that AF decided to do it because they saw it as a growth vector and/or a marketing play. The latter failed spectacularly btw - if you actually looked up the trending metrics surrounding that. It landed with a resounding thud. And we won’t know the results of the former (growth) unless and until ApeChain becomes a reality in the coming months. That’s when devs will start asking wtf they should build on ApeChain instead of, oh I dunno, rolling an Orbit chain, or even going to Treasure or XAI, neither of which would guide them toward ApeChain. My guess is that Horizen (responsible for growth on ApeChain) is likely to throw funds (out of the meager $1M per year the grant accounts for) at such devs. And that brings us right back here; except the GCP has $400MM to do the same with, and also, with funding of that magnitude, a much better shot at attracting worthy devs and games.
Yes - it’s quite literally a vote of confidence and a massive leap of faith, both of which rely on the performance of the Council and the Catalyst team. As I’ve said before, it only takes 1-3 games to set a course for how this plays out. Though sadly, unless there are games currently in the pipeline and from devs who aren’t already committed to other chains or who don’t need funding, it could take up to 12 months or more from GCP taking applications for us to see any games on ARB as a result of GCP funding.
I remain optimistic and confident that this is a good move for ARB.
1 Like
This is some of what I’ve been going on about. PlayStation crypto game dev Gunzilla Games raises $30 million in round led by Avalanche fund and CoinFund
Those are the types of moves the chains are making.
I appreciate your optimism and share your confidence in ARB’s direction. It’s encouraging to note that several small gaming teams are already exploring development on Arbitrum.
While their success and player base may currently seem modest, especially when compared to traditional mobile gaming benchmarks, it’s important to remember that these efforts preceded the establishment of the Gaming Catalyst Program. The potential for growth and traction once the GCP is fully operational is significant.
The frequent mention of AAA games, while ambitious, shouldn’t overshadow the program’s immediate goals. Our focus should be on attracting, guiding, and nurturing builders and game developers. This approach will not only enhance the gaming ecosystem on Arbitrum, but also introduce more players to our platform. While AAA titles may emerge in time, our initial aim should be to foster “fun games to play” that resonate with a broad audience.
Ultimately, the goal is to seamlessly integrate web2 players into the Arbitrum gaming experience, making the technology transparent to the user. Achieving this will truly mark a milestone in attracting a wider audience and inspiring the next generation of builders.
Truth be told, Web3 isn’t exactly getting standing ovations in the core gaming space right now. So, instead of trying to win over the skeptics, our game plan is to reel in those builders who already see the vision, the ones who just get it.
The sooner Arbitrum can get started, the better.
Can you explain how you see the potential for growth and traction being significant under the GCP?
From my perspective and experience, I have always found that access to money isn’t a litmus test of success or failure. Most especially in gaming. The GCP is merely a funding vehicle which has no involvement in the viability, let alone the success or failure of a game project. I brought up this comparison before, in that a traditional publisher tends to do a lot more than just provide funding. It’s why indies self-publishing on Steam or EGS tend to have to do all the things - including marketing - that publishers would otherwise do. And yet still, it’s a hit or miss.
My view of the success of the GCP is transient to that of the games funded by it because at the end of the day, even those that don’t have an ROI requirement, won’t succeed by just their mere presence on ARB.
Indeed. But herein lies the rub. ARB doesn’t [yet] have a [cohesive] gaming ecosystem. At least not in the traditional sense. And most of the games and their associated communities, are parked on Treasure; and soon others will do the same on XAI. And so, games being funded through the GCP aren’t going to somehow automagically create a gaming presence other than be featured among a list of slew of games on something on like Arbitrum Arcade.
There are quite a few fun games (e.g. Pirate Nation comes to mind) already within the ARB gaming ecosystem; but most of them aren’t being played. And as I said before, it’s not because they aren’t fun games, nor is it visibility a problem due to the small amount of games on the ecosystem. I believe that the primary issue is one of exposure, not discovery. Marketing and/or promoting a game to a bubble of degens isn’t a plan that yields the expected results. Especially given that that [degen] bubble primarily cares more about making money than about the games themselves. And so, if you have a game that’s not terribly fun and which doesn’t have decent tokenomics, no degen is going to touch it. Similarly, a fun game without decent tokenomics will suffer the same fate - every time. And even the degens who do end up checking out such games, are likely to bail in search of the next thing. This is the reality of Web3 gaming - and which cannot be ignored. And it’s specifically why the games with the larger budgets - not even AA or AAA - reach out beyond the degen bubble due to extensive marketing and promo activities. For example, games like Shrapnel, the aforementioned Off The Grid, and a few others.
My point being, the GCP can provide as much funding to a team as is required, but there are several factors that go into how that game performs, and whether or not it is a “win” for the ARB community proper.
What Treasure seems to have achieved on ARB, and which I believe XAI is also on track to do, is create an AIO (All-In-One) on-boarding solution. This is similar to the Steam and EGS model whereby you get all the tools that you need to deploy/publish on the platform; but when it comes to marketing and promo, you’re [mostly] on your own. All that aside from the discovery problem because such an easy on-board system tends to also create a glut of games.
As I mentioned in the education thread, these are some of the things that the Catalyst Team needs to make a priority in funding grants or venture deals. A team needs to not only show how much of the funds are going toward dev, but also their marketing plans. And since some of these things have KPIs and similar activities which cannot be tracked - at least not without periodic reporting to the GCP team - there has to be a way to show that when you said 10% of funding when to marketing, that 10% of funding did in fact go to marketing. There are entire teams (Upptic, Windwalk etc) that do dedicated Web3 marketing activities as well as community building.
Anyone who believes that just throwing $400MM at this challenge is going to somehow yield expected results, really doesn’t understand how any of this works. I know that I already sound like a broken record in this regard, but it’s something that I am hoping sinks in as things move forward.
Indeed. And that’s the part of the challenge of expanding the [degen] bubble from the outside. But that’s what everyone else is currently doing anyway; and honestly, ARB doesn’t have an edge that I can see thus far. We’re not talking about a Steam vs EGS vs Green Man Gaming vs Everyone Else. We’re talking about ARB competing with other “game-centric” chains which already have a major lead, even in the face of Treasure and the growth of XAI. And the end result is going to be that without [gamer] eyeballs being on the GCP funded games, it’s an insurmountable challenge.
Today, I saw David Taylor’s analysis of the revenue paid out to Fortnite creators. It’s all kinds of crazy. A total of $320MM (!) paid out - in the past 12 (!) months. Most of those gamers are neither making nor playing Web3 games. And you’re not going to attract them without a compelling game and a reason to even take a look, let alone play it.
In my view, besides a $400MM play, ARB needs something else that gives it the edge that other game centric chains don’t have; and which, much like the noise of the GCP funding, makes gamers and builders take notice.
I couldn’t agree more. But the challenge is going to be in not only identifying and reaching out to those builders like me who see the vision, but also to convince them that coming to ARB is a win-win. I will say this again, just throwing money at the challenge in a bid to see what sticks, will not yield the expected results.
Related to this, I was recently pondering something that @karelvuong pointed out in his missive in his Minimum Viable Catalyst suggestion due to the time it’s going to take for GCP to get up an running. 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. But here’s the thing:
The ARB grant appears to only go up to $150K; and that’s if you apply directly and within a specific funding cycle.
That hasn’t - thus far - yielded the expected results because only one game, Into The Dungeons, went that route for 180K ARB. And it failed to pass.
One. Single. Game.
When you consider that the budgets of large teams tends to eclipse that of the average indie, offers of $150K to “large teams” isn’t the sort of thing that those teams even consider; regardless of the fact that grants aren’t designed to fund games to any meaningful degree. So, what would such a team do with $150K that’s worth going through the trouble of deploying on ARB? e.g. If I were to migrate my in-progress Web3 game to ARB from the chain we’re currently on, it would cost me in excess of $200K to do it. And so, of what use is even a $200K grant to me if that’s just going to go towards my migration/deployment costs? What else is there in the ARB ecosystem that warrants the migration?
That is a personal example of why I keep saying that this is a lot more than just money. And these are some of the questions and metrics that any builder who knows what he’s doing, and who isn’t just looking for money without any guarantee of performance, is going to be asking themselves.
That said, any builder that decides to go through the MVC via the voting process, is not only more likely to fail - even based on the merits of the game - but once that happens, they’re not coming back.
And so, to me, despite the best intentions there, I believe that to try and “jump start” GCP via such an MVC, aside from adding another layer of work and a risky barrier of entry, will also - in one fell swoop - yield results which GCP naysayers will be quick to highlight at some point because the process would be seen as being rushed (something that I have advocated against).
And speaking of GDC, the announcement of King of Destiny, a preexisting game, and XAI’s announcements (e.g. Crypto Unicorns), were the only notable ARB gaming news. And speaking of migration costs, the CU teams also pointed out how major it is for them to migrate from Polygon to XAI.
It’s clear from the recent proposal vote that the voting population realizes the need to on-board gaming to ARB - in a big, albeit expensive, way. However, it’s up to the foundation itself to start making moves now, ahead of the GCP, or we’re all just going to be having this very same discussion +6 months from now. I remain confident that the GCP is a blue ocean opportunity, and so, I will try to help in whatever way that I can.
FYI (related to my earlier point about GCP needing to do more than just issue funds)
Saga Announces Saga Origins Game Publishing Arm During GDC 2024
“Saga Origins is committed to offering a full-service and collaborative approach to bring games to a global mass market. Whereas developers would traditionally secure grants only to build and launch their games, Saga Origins offers added beneficial support, including partnerships with influencers to generate awareness, sponsored user acquisition campaigns, community building, and promotional support. Through its on-going Play-to-Airdrop campaigns, Saga, game studios and guilds, all team up to organize tournaments where players are rewarded with highly sought after $SAGA tokens for their participation. Most recently in January, Saga completed its revolutionary The Three Kingdoms airdrop campaign with participating partners Avalanche, Polygon and Solana.”
“We’re the only chain to do a publishing house”
I appreciate your insights and the emphasis on the multifaceted nature of success in gaming. However, my recent discussions with developers at different stages of implementation on Arbitrum paint a contrasting picture. These conversations revealed teams genuinely struggling to make ends meet, lacking not only the substantial resources necessary for extensive exploration and development but also, in some cases, the gaming expertise or third-party guidance that can pivot their projects toward success.
This is precisely where the value of the GCP, alongside the Council and the Catalyst Venture Team, becomes evident. They offer not just the financial support but also the much-needed guidance and expertise to navigate the complex landscape of game development on Arbitrum. It’s this combination of resources, expertise, and altruistic guidance that I believe can significantly impact, supporting developers to focus on their passion: creating engaging and fun experiences on Arbitrum.
Indeed, the current state of ARB’s gaming ecosystem may not yet be cohesive in the traditional sense, with many games and their communities gravitating towards platforms like Treasure and potentially XAI in the future. This reality underlines the importance of the GCP’s main objective: to attract top-tier builders capable of creating compelling, high-quality games. These games are essential not just for their entertainment value but for their ability to draw in and retain new users within the Arbitrum ecosystem, thereby nurturing a vibrant and diverse gaming community. If they leverage Treasure or XAI (honestly it’s not a fair comparison right now), it’s beyond the core scope of GCP.
Absolutely, I share your sentiment. Simply pouring $400M into the gaming ecosystem isn’t a guaranteed recipe for success, and as someone deeply involved in mobile publishing with major IPs and substantial budgets, I understand the intricacies involved.
My experience includes collaborating with Upptic on projects we’ve either published or played a significant financial role in (i.e; we acquired the studio). The real potential of a $400M investment lies in strategic management and execution. The difference between speculating about what might be achieved and actively working towards making those achievements a reality is crucial. Our focus should be on leveraging this funding effectively to create impactful results.
Indeed, the figures from Fortnite’s creator payouts are astonishing, showcasing the incredible potential of successful game ecosystems. However, expecting Arbitrum or this program to mirror Epic Games’ success or launch the next “Fortnite” may not align with our immediate goals or realities.
Given your extensive experience as an indie developer, I’m sure you appreciate that our focus is on fostering a diverse and vibrant gaming ecosystem on Arbitrum. The aim is to attract developers and gamers with the promise of innovative and engaging gaming experiences, rather than replicating the blockbuster success of established giants overnight. “We want to develop the next Fortinite or AAA game” is simply the wrong goal.
What is it?
I understand your concerns about the effectiveness of financial investment alone. However, I wonder, what outcomes do you envision for the Catalyst Program to consider it a success?
We are establishing a Council and a Catalyst Venture Team for this very reason. If these entities do not fulfill their responsibilities, then indeed, the investment might not achieve its intended impact.
Nevertheless, I believe it’s critical to start with a presumption of efficacy and the selection of a competent team. I maintain an optimistic perspective, viewing challenges as opportunities for growth. It’s an ambitious endeavor, and maintaining a positive outlook is essential for navigating the journey ahead.
With all due respect, it might be worth taking a closer look at who’s actually building on Arbitrum, past and present.
The idea that it’s okay for games to take over 12 months just to see the light of day doesn’t sit right. If that’s what we’re seeing after the first year, then it’s clear – the Catalyst Venture Team and the Council aren’t cutting it and should probably be shown the door. Quick development and getting games out there is key; we can’t afford to drag our feet.
I must disagree with your figures regarding the migration costs. From my experience and current discussions, the notion that it requires $200k to migrate a game to Arbitrum is not accurate.
Many teams I’ve been in talks with are operating or planning to operate on Arbitrum with budgets starting at around $5k/month (let’s x2, that’s $10k a month…). These are developers deeply passionate about gaming, eager to explore or continue their journey on Arbitrum.
However, starting from incorrect assumptions can lead us down a problematic path, shaping a flawed rationale for the future.
What concerns me more are the expectations set for these teams by Arbitrum and the criteria for defining a game’s success as perceived by the DAO.
If we’re using metrics like monthly transactions as the primary measure of a game’s success, then, in my opinion, we’re not laying the right foundation. This approach is what I’ve gleaned from conversations that developers have had with Offchain Labs, and it worries me.
The Council must ensure the Venture Team not only understands, but also has a deep knowledge of the gaming industry. Being proficient in business development is not sufficient. My experience in game publishing has shown me that to draw in the best talent, you need an equally exceptional team engaging with them.
1 Like
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.
Great job on initiating the Gaming Catalyst Program! 
It’s a pivotal step towards solidifying Arbitrum’s position as a leader in competitive network gaming. Here’s a suggestion: let’s ensure that alongside attracting talented developers, we focus on fostering a vibrant gaming community on Arbitrum. Engaging users through interactive events, tournaments, and community-driven initiatives can amplify the program’s impact and attract even more users. Keep up the fantastic work! 
2 Likes