๐Ÿ‘€Market Overview

Shortcomings of the industry

Unsustainable content iteration

In GameFi 1.0, the gameplay is too simple. However, it didn't prevent GameFi 1.0 products from becoming commercially successful.

The current 2.0 products are working hard to improve the gameplay and design texture. But can a centralized content production model, in which gameplay and content revolve around a single game developer, go further than its predecessors? Can it keep bringing a sense of freshness to players?

It is hard to imagine a centralized development mechanism will consistently meet the demand of users. If this becomes true, there will be only two results:

  1. Old users' hoard of NFT/tokens, higher familiarity and mastery of single gameplay, make the entry cost of new players higher and their profit less;

  2. Users' gaming experience cannot be continuously satisfied, resulting in insufficient user engagement.

So far, the problem is not just confined to GameFi, a young and popular field. In the traditional game market, there are very few games that can maintain such a balance.

GameFi & ContentFi combination

We find that the "Play-to-Earn" attribute that NFT presents in GameFi and the rare, unique, and value-added attributes that NFT presents in the art market are incompatible with each other.

Current GameFi products have no means to add value to their NFT or even their tokens. The value of NFT is largely related to the growth of the user population and not directly to the content of the product, which is a dangerous model will make it difficult to build a foundation for usersโ€™ confidence in the value of the content. There is no centralized mechanism that can guarantee the value of content.

Single Ecological Relationship

GameFi could not completely decouple with the first expectation of "Play-to-Earn". As a result, the relationship between users cannot be precipitated as in the traditional game market. Players are more concerned about asset appreciation and profitability. From a relationship chain perspective, the content provider-to-player relationship is much closer than the player-to-player relationship.

The two-point structure of the content-to-player makes it challenging to maintain a stable content ecosystem.

Products Lack Endorsement of Value

A centralized content creation mechanism is not directly based on the value of digital assets with premium content. The problem with a single ecological relationship is that when the product is experiencing declining growth, it seems to be an "optimal solution" for the content provider to cut off the project and embezzle the money invested by users.

From this point of view, if the content production mechanism cannot be changed, the foundation of confidence and trust cannot be truly constructed.

Last updated