This is a segment from The Drop newsletter. To read full editions, subscribe.
Apparently, it’s a controversial take in crypto to ask for more single-player games (and fewer multiplayer games).
When juicing up an in-game economy with crypto elements, a multiplayer game seems like the obvious choice. Players can flex their purchasing power to others in the game. They can crush others with their NFT that cost $1,000, showing other players that they are, indeed, willing to spend that much on a single game item.
But is that use case worth the cost? And can most crypto game studios — most of which are technically “indie” game developers — even make successful 3D multiplayers with complex but balanced crypto economies that live up to their (and our) expectations?
Ronin cofounder Aleksander Larsen previously told me that every crypto game studio can only pick two of these three options: graphics, gameplay, and game economy. (For Axie Infinity, they chose gameplay and economy.) The reason not every game can have all three shining bright is partly because of budget, but also because of the time it would take to perfect all three (therefore costing more money).
I wrote a thread about this single-player versus multiplayer issue yesterday that went, surprisingly, viral. If you want to crack the X engagement algorithm, by the way, just write an essay of 1,000 words or more in a single tweet (xeet?) about something on which you have a strong opinion and years of experience. People will read it and some will probably get mad at you. But that’s okay, because now people are thinking about it.
When it comes to single-player, 53% of gamers actually prefer single-player games, according to a 2023 Midia Research study.
The whole CS:GO-and-DOTA gray markets argument came up a few times, with critics saying, I love trading skins in these games, of course we need more games that have this natively with crypto!
Those brands were built with more money than most crypto game studios have — and building those brand-name games to what they are today took many, many years (CS has been around since the actual year 2000).
So if you’re willing to wait 10-plus years — and help fund such games — then be my guest.
The first major challenge ambitious multiplayer games in crypto face is the ping-and-player-count problem for immersive, 3D games. Live ops video games offering multiplayer experiences like first-person shooters require the use of many different servers around the world. The server needs are substantial for any game that requires low latency (ping) like FPS games, MOBAs, or even some MMORPGs. Apex Legends, for example, previously had over 15 different servers for US-based players alone for years (before it switched to AWS recently).
But because players need low enough ping in these types of games in order to actually play and compete against others without being at a disadvantage, that means there needs to be enough of a playerbase in their precise region connecting to each server and pressing “Play” at the same time to sustain decent matchmaking times (less than 10 minutes, preferably less than three minutes).
That’s one of the reasons why, I think, we’re only seeing one Off The Grid right now. That, and the fact that building a game like that takes tens of millions of dollars, many years, and some star power to get more funding and bring it to market.
Crypto games, for many years and likely for a number of years into the future, also have a smaller number of interested players by default. Blockchain games are not going to surpass Fortnite, Roblox, or Call of Duty anytime soon for many reasons that should be obvious, and I touched on above. Many gamers also still take issue with NFTs, and have decried every single mainstream game studio’s attempt at launching a crypto integration or game.
The reality is, we just don’t have enough interested players in this already-oversatured gaming market to make piles of pricey, live-ops multiplayer games. The broader gaming industry is having a difficult time, too, as Animoca’s Yat Siu and VCs have recently pointed out.
Thankfully, crypto game development has been trending toward mobile, which typically involves lower development costs and games that don’t require low ping. Naavik and Game7 research found that mobile titles made up 30% of all crypto games last year, with Telegram games making up another 20%. Most crypto game developers are also technically “indie” based on their funding amount and budgets, meaning they simply don’t have the cash to make the next Call of Duty for crypto.
Maintaining games that use mobile or have a single-player focus will be less of a lift for developers, many of whom are also finding it difficult to raise more money right now.
Single-player crypto games can have asynchronous marketplaces, meaning one player can list something for sale, keep playing the game, and then eight hours later someone else on the other side of the world buys that item. There are many reasons why players would want to buy items for a single-player game, and they do already (the third-party site Nookazon is a good example of Animal Crossing trading, and people buy items for The Sims all the time). What if CyberPunk 2077 let you buy glitzy NFT items? What if NFT game cosmetics or items from single-player titles had other use cases or perks, too?
Crypto gaming has potential. There will be successful games that break through the noise. But many are on hopium, and need to come back down to earth with regard to what’s actually possible with the money that’s going around.
We’ve seen three multiplayer-focused crypto game studios close in the past month. If that isn’t a wake-up call that the existing strategies aren’t working, I don’t know what is.
Get the news in your inbox. Explore Blockworks newsletters:
