We all heard about Web3 gaming. This is something that hit a fevered peak a couple years ago. Of course, this was something that, like most sectors of cryptocurrency, was bound to take a hit. Whether it is because markets get ahead of themselves or due to the fact that people are following the wrong path, there are likely to be hiccups along the way.

When it comes to markets, unfortunately, this usually means crash. The world of NFTs, albeit slightly tied to this, was another instance where we witnessed the same thing.

During that time, we heard the idea of Play2Earn. This was the rage. The idea is that by playing games, you earned assets which had utility in whatever game was being played.

This sounds like a great concept on the surface. However, what was really owned and how did it apply? This is something that people started to question.

Also, what happens if the game is no longer of interest or, even around?

Image by Ideogram

Play2Own: A New Wave In Gaming

One of the issues I see is with the basic concept of Web 3.0.

We all know the idea of read-write-own. The last part is something that I really question within this realm at this point. If own is the major difference between the different "generation" of the Internet, how come so few are focused upon it?

Instead, we keep hearing about income related ideas. While income tends to precede ownership, the mindset of simply earning means we are modeling the same system that most of us operate under.

Here is where gaming can change this.

Instead of earning, how about owning? Also, instead of the in-game asset, it is the value tied to it?

For example, consider the idea of $1,000. Is this owned?

A player purchases an asset for $250. This money gets something that is related to a game, perhaps fuel for a space colonization game. The individual is adept at the game, and over time, the value of that asset grows to $1,000. This is due to strengthening it with success. Market dynamics can also play a role as the game becomes more popular.

After a spell, our gamer decides the interest is no longer there. The game got boring. This is a common occurrence.

Here is where another game is found. This is a battle game meaning the fuel is no longer useful. Under present circumstances, the item would be sold on the market and an asset relating to the second game is purchased.

This is, naturally, much better than Web 2.0 gaming which leaves the player with nothing. However, what if the ownership wasn't the in-game asset but, rather, the value?

It means that the $1,000 value is what is swapped. The NFT itself means nothing, it is the value tied to it. That could present artwork relating to fuel or a sword. All attributes are realized based upon the value tied to the first one.

As we can guess, this opens up an entirely new realm. People who are participating acquire asset ownership through their actions. The key difference is we are no longer tied to a particular game.

Wider Use Case

What comes to mind as I ponder this is what are the broader applications?

We are conditioned into thinking about something representing an asset being tied to that asset. In other words, we have a title to a car, that is applicable to that specific automobile. The one that came off the assembly line next has a completely different title.

In the digital realm. game tokens are the same way. There is a specific item it represents. Under this scenario, the features of that asset are spelled out. Some games allow for the changing of it.

What if, however, this concept was shifted to where the representation wasn't the specific attributes but what valued tied to the characteristics. This could be quantified and traded just like these gaming pieces.

For example, think of this in the realm of art.

A couple paintings are divided up into 50 tokens apiece. This means there are 100 "ownership" units in total.

Let us say that I purchase a token for each, at the cost of $60 and $100. The value of the token would adjust based upon the pricing of the painting.

Since I own both, I decide I want to combine them. This means we have 98 individual tokens for the two paintings and a single joint one. If the value of the tokens move to $80 and $120 respectively, my ownership is now worth $200. However, as a joint owner, perhaps the market values mine at $220.

Of course, if I decide art is no longer my thing, I could then swap that value of a token related to some qualities for a game that I am playing. The value is transferred even across different genres.

These are just some of the potentialities when we start playing around with digitization. Innovation is going to allow for structures we never really thought about.

In the medium term, perhaps we see an impact in gaming.

---

What Is Hive

Posted Using InLeo Alpha