If NFT gaming is to go mainstream, then its gonna take more than “passive income” to achieve that.

This is a major issue that I’m so surprised many NFT game developers still haven’t noticed.

These developers really think that “passive income” is the one and only feature that will help NFTs go mainstream but this is far from the truth.

In their current state, NFT games are very boring. There’s a ton of traditional console and PC games that are way more entertaining.

This is the problem that developers need to tackle but the main issue lies in processing power, lack of funds, and straight off laziness.

The issue with processing power is slowly being solved since L2s are making major breakthroughs especially with some of them developing modular systems for scaling kind of like what Mantle Network is doing right now.

The issue with funding however is a major one because the NFT gaming space is extremely lacking in big name investors. The only ones investing big money into NFT gaming right now are BitDAO, investing hundreds of millions of dollars into Game7 which I think might have potential to cause some change in the market

(fun sidenote: they’re the ones funding Mantle as well)

But other than that, no whale or institution is willing to put huge amounts of money into GameFi.

I think if some big traditional gaming companies start investing into this space, it might get the ball rolling and we’ll start seeing major developments in both quality of the games and in the processing power driving these games.

Activision, Rockstar, Tencent. We need these behemoths in order to start seeing any difference

View Source

Categories NFT

4 thoughts on “If NFT gaming is to go mainstream, then its gonna take more than “passive income” to achieve that.”

  1. The Behemoths can’t move in if there are too much Tate FOMO’s speculating on the assets that are needed to support that kind of development. Big companies live on small percentages, and can be made or destroyed by an orchestrated army of manipulated idiots. This is why the “real” economy is regulated. Until small people stop looking for big profits the big companies living of small profit margins won’t move in because one pump and dump could destroy them and the only protection for them would be manipulating the market themselves but that can create legal problems. Activision doesn’t want to be the next SBF.

    Reply
  2. I think as long as the game is developed to be fun to play first and NFT/Gamefi second it’ll end up in a good spot.
    Too many projects try to do nfts and gamefi first and then start developing a game and the timeline and success rate is abysmal.

    The only project I’ve seen do it right is Etherjump.
    They had a game built before they minted, created their own engine, and designed a game that’s basically a cross between Mario Maker and Celeste where you can build and save your level to the NFT.

    Check it out. You can play for free here: https://play.etherjump.game/

    All it would take is a couple of streamers to challenge each other on these levels and this could actually take off.

    Reply
  3. The solution is right in front of us but many don’t see it. If interconnect blockchains, and enable to import NFTs from other places then a real multiverse may become true. (Something like in the movie – Ready player One)

    Reply
  4. This is absolutely true. We made the mistake in the beginning on choosing our blockchain as ETH to run our backend, it’s now going to cost me nearly a grand to rewrite my entire backend to use MATIC instead. There are so many bottlenecks when it comes to web3 gaming in general, generating passive income, in my opinion isn’t one of them. You are absolutely correct that game devs shouldn’t only focus on how they can create revenue for their players but also take into account actual gameplay. My team is working to re-create neopets/pokemon in a 3D environment using NFTs as the forefront of how our in-game economy will work. We are focusing on making the game fun, it’s not complete but every week it makes more and more progress. If we had gone with Polygon from the beginning we would be much farther along our projects goals.

    Moral of the story, when picking a chain to build your game on figure out how many transactions your game will be running and pick the most suitable chain cost wise. For us that’s Polygon.

    In a year or 2 it might be ETH and I’ll be kicking myself in the ass for making this switch.Like another redditor said. Cross-chain technology would be such an ideal solution but it’s just not that simple.

    Reply

Leave a Comment