I've played several blockchain games and to be honest, they're enjoyable only in the beginning when there is an incentive. Players are only motivated to play because of the incentives and the rewards that are expected to get in the end while playing the game. And I think that is a very very wrong narrative and reasoning if someone is into games. Games are meant to be enjoyed and played because they should be fun. But with integration of blockchain, there is nothing wrong with that but the motivation that sinks in to the minds of everyone is about the reward, the fun is gone. Looking at the long term sustainability of the blockchain games, they're hard if majority of the users are all earning. There must be a funding that should circulate not only with the players but also with the game itself and developers. It should be a real economy. I've played a lot in the past without blockchain and crypto and yet, they've stayed for so long because the developers are not greedy and they are maintaining a balance in the economy of it. I think this is now one of the reasons why most blockchain games are too early to die.
You make a solid point, and this is exactly why many early blockchain games have struggled—they were built around the "earn first, fun second" model, which isn’t sustainable in the long run.
A game should be enjoyable with or without incentives. The problem isn’t blockchain itself, but how it's been integrated so far. Most blockchain games have relied too much on Ponzi-like tokenomics, where the only reason people play is to extract value. Once rewards dry up, players leave, and the game dies.
That's right, we all have noticed that and that kind of model that they have introduced didn't went for long term. The devs knew it, they know their economics and have studied but they went for themselves first and not for the ecosystem and community that they are building. It's just sad that the fun was gone with them when most people are motivated by the rewards and here in my country, they were treated as a day job even if the rewards were quite low.
The key to long-term sustainability is creating a real, balanced in-game economy where spending and earning happen naturally. Traditional games thrive because players spend money for enjoyment, not just for profit. Blockchain games should aim for the same, but with true asset ownership, fair monetization, and player-driven economies—not just endless payouts.
I agree, they have to put that plan for the long term and needs to put some ideas of how and what they will do in response when the demand isn't coping. It should be part of the plan because it's not going to be as demanding as always just like the usual games that we used to grow up with. And with the economy they are building, there is a need for them to get involved with it but not through manipulation but with the balancing for the benefits of all.
Take SACHI GAME as an example—it’s not built around an "earn-first" model but rather an immersive casino metaverse where Web3 adds real value. Blackjack, Roulette, PvP battles, and other skill-based games are designed for entertainment, while blockchain enhances the experience with true asset ownership, fair competition, and transparent transactions. Instead of focusing solely on rewards, the game prioritizes fun and sustainability, with Web3 as a supporting element rather than the core motivation.
You have mentioned gambling actually, while there is a blockchain on it but it won't change the fact that it's just another upgraded use of blockchain that has been there for so long.
At the end of the day, blockchain should be a tool, not the selling point. The games that succeed will be the ones that are fun first, with Web3 enhancing the experience rather than defining it.
Yup. They shouldn't replace the fun and joy that their players will feel and monetization will come eventually with that and will make people happy to stay for as long as they can and will make them loyal if there is balance in things.