Author: consome Translation: MetaCat
I have been involved in on-chain gaming for 2-3 years. I was excited at the time to see things like Dark Forest, MUDs, Moving Castle, etc., but the pace of on-chain gaming still seemed to be struggling with composability across different games. I'd be happy to provide another perspective on composability. I like metaphors and my ideas are simple.
idea
Learn from DeFi .
short description
Provide components or functions that can be integrated into on-chain games as independent services .
Make games and other applications (not necessarily games) using independent services (components or features) provided by other parties.
For example
Provide avatar services to gamers.
A service that serves as a login reward function.
A virtual vegetable company service that provides players with vegetables. Players feed vegetable seeds at certain intervals.
Virtual restaurant offering vegetable dishes.
A virtual grocery store that allows companies to sell vegetables to players.
A virtual car company that designs cars for games.
We will create such components and features as standalone services and then integrate them into games or other applications to build worlds. This doesn't mean we need to create games on autonomous worlds, but rather create smaller components that can be used in games.
Previously, my team worked on building a protocol that might be a good example of this concept from the past. Here is the related article: https://mirror.xyz/starknet-metamaterial.eth/G8TLixABSyEL_tZ40iS4hAsOy_fxHdDA-Bw6x1aYCbs
what happens?
for builders
Luxury brands, car companies, vegetable farms, grocery stores and restaurants are all created on-chain. If you are a game developer, you can create a racing game using clothing provided by luxury brands. While there are some technical hurdles, you can change/tweak the performance of your car and the appearance of your avatar in-game without requiring permission to keep the game interesting. (Of course, adjustments should be made off-chain/client-side)
This is an analogy to the basic concepts of blockchain, as in the case of Uniswap and Liquidity. They allow multiple frontends based on smart contracts. This means that the upper layer can provide users with different use cases and adjustable UI/UX. I think games should have flexibility in terms of adjusting the appearance and performance of on-chain content.
Or there might be a service that offers a simple wardrobe app that gives users the freedom to customize the clothes they own and show them to friends. It's not a game, but it sounds like fun.
You can open a restaurant and serve food prepared with vegetables from the farmers.
Vegetable farmers can sell their produce to restaurants or grocery stores.
for players
Players will earn clothes and vehicles by interacting with each component/feature. Sometimes they go to the store to buy clothes, sometimes they collect materials to make vehicles. The ways to obtain these things can be diverse. The player then goes to a racing game and plays it.
Another player can grow vegetables at the company and then take them to the restaurant for dishes. If a racing game had the ability to accept dishes to improve vehicle performance, then players could use the dishes to create a good score.
The concept doesn't mean just creating a game, but creating a world. A player might find joy in growing and selling vegetables. Another might find fun in customizing an avatar or participating in racing competitions. Modular on-chain games give players and game builders different motivations.
Origin of concept
A tweet from @punk4156
Creating a virtual car company sounds like fun.
So far, I can say that most on-chain games are monolithic games. As a result, components in the game (items, avatars/avatars, crafting features, login bonuses, quests, etc.) are created as custom features that don't give us interoperability, network effects, or positive feedback across different games. I'm not trying to say it's bad, just that this single game can provide players with a high-quality gaming experience.
However, on the other hand, as a contrasting idea, modular games (or non-game applications) should be allowed to exist in autonomous worlds. That is, components with minimal functionality exist independently in an autonomous world, and these components are integrated into the game (or non-game application).
Looking at the scene in the blockchain and DeFi fields, I can say that they exist as a modular ecosystem. Each service is functionally specific and independent and can be integrated into different services. Uniswap does not offer lending, options or other services, but it does provide finely tuned DEX functionality. Other services can integrate Uniswap into options, lending or other products.
Can we apply the same concept to an autonomous world?
View from Loot
Loot is a collection of NFTs that only contain phrases that represent some attributes.
When dom revealed the series to the world, the game didn't exist yet. But the community has built up a slew of Loot-related games and apps after avid minting. My conclusion is that we don't need to have games first, but rather create components in the crypto space first. Of course, I know this concept is completely different from traditional game creation. But I also know that events in the cryptocurrency space are often unbelievable and contrary to real life.
Why now?
We have game engines like Autonomous World and Dojo, but we don't have game assets, components or features as public goods. Unity and Unreal Engine have a very rich set of plug-ins and resources. Today, the on-chain gaming space is attracting more and more attention, but barriers to joining still exist.
Main advantages
We can get rid of the difficulty of creating games that are restricted by the rules of the blockchain.
Non-game developers can also join in.
If you have DEX development experience, why not create a vegetable exchange service in an autonomous world?
We can create network effects.
High bifurcation
Players with different motivations will join in
You don't need to create all game components. What you need to create should be minimal.
What is the goal?
When I explain this concept to others, many ask me: "What is the goal of this concept?"
The concept is similar to the DeFi or blockchain space, so we can learn from them to find answers. It’s like answering the question, what is the goal of DeFi?
I can say that this concept extends the on-chain gaming space into a metaverse. Seeing the world we live in, I realized that the real world is made up of modular components, such as restaurants, grocery stores, barber shops, vending machines, etc... Similarly, if we build many components in the on-chain universe, they Will connect and function just like the real world or a more magical world.
The concept is not a service but a builder's principle. The entire ecosystem will be aDAO for game studios. Be optimistic about the future, we are at the point where we are creating new dApps similar to Uniswap in DeFi, just go build it.
