Why should any player be payed to play a game? The value of a game is player enjoyment, so if they are enjoying the game, that is payment enough, no? As with anything new in the crypto space must be asked the question "Who is paying, and why?".
In most "Pay to Earn" games, the model is that users buy tokens or NFT's in order to gain advantage in the game, in order to earn more tokens, in order to earn a profit. But ultimately, someone must be losing money in this system. And in order for it to be sustainable, that person must be ok with losing the money, because they are getting some value in return. If everyone expects to earn, that is not sustainable when people start to realize that putting more money in does not always mean more money out.
What value does a player provide to a game that the game does not provide to the player? The answer is - players provide the value of competent and interesting opposition. Human players are often more competent, generally less predictable and more interesting than AI opposition. Not all players enjoy a game to the same degree, and many players might want human opposition in a particular game when they're not able to get it from their friends. In such a case, human players can provide value to other human players, value worth paying for.
"Pay to earn" should be based on the matching of players who want human opposition and can't get it for free, with those who want to play for winnings or earnings. The player who wants human opposition should be consciously putting up payment (whether paid in hours or money added to a pot that the other players can win) in exchange for the service of competent opposition.
Thoughts? Is there a market for hiring human players as opposition in games as a superior alternative to playing against AI?
I've seen Rising Star call it 'play and earn'. In their case you are not really playing against other players. Anyone can issue tokens and is it much different issuing them for playing than for something like blogging? The markets decide if those tokens have value. Splinterlands is the big one, but I think they get a lot of money coming in from people buying packs. On Rising Star I just use what I earn in the game. I'm not really taking a profit from it for now. Well see what happens if the price goes up.
Blogging isn't what gives Hive value - the network itself has value and usage of and equity in the network is value the tokens inherit from the network. Tokens don't have value because the market decides*, but because they provide some actual value to users that they can't get otherwise (at least for the same cost).
* (aside from speculative, which is real but not necessarily sustainable)
Well I'd say it all has value in terms of token price if people will invest. Hive has value to me as a social platform. It's all speculative to some extent, but I think Hive has a long-term future as so many people are doing things with it.
By that logic, Onecoin and Bitconnect and the other straight up Ponzi scheme tokens have value because people invest in them. Sure they have a price, but if speculation is all there is then it can be at best a zero sum game. Overall no value is generated, only transferred between participants, and usually much is lost in the process.
Congratulations @demotruk! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next payout target is 33000 HP.
The unit is Hive Power equivalent because post and comment rewards can be split into HP and HBD
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Check out our last posts:
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!