top of page

Diet Web3: how much Web3 is enough to qualify a game as truly Web3?

Writer's picture: whatsyourgam3whatsyourgam3

In a recent Twitter Space titled Diet Web3, industry voices gathered to tackle a tricky question: how much Web3 is enough to qualify a game as truly Web3? As blockchain gaming evolves, finding the right balance between utilizing blockchain tech and maintaining a seamless gameplay experience is a challenge many developers face. The discussion highlighted varying opinions on what makes a game genuinely Web3 and whether there's a point where it becomes too diluted or too overwhelming.

Can You Have Too Little Web3 in a Game?

The discussion started with the question of whether a game can integrate too little Web3 to be considered part of the ecosystem. DeFi_ZooRacer9000 drew from recent examples, pointing out that some popular games barely use blockchain at all: “I think a perfect example, if you look at the space this time last year, and then you look at off the grid, the hot new thing this time last year was big time. And that game is essentially not even on chain at all.” For him, a game's Web3 elements need to be significant enough to justify the label. His comment highlighted a frustration with projects that market themselves as Web3 while barely utilizing the tech.


Aero³, however, emphasized the feeling of ownership rather than a checklist of blockchain features. He argued that if a player invests time and effort into a game, they should have a stake in it: “As a gamer... if I'm investing a lot of time and effort and blood, sweat and tears into accumulating assets and mining resources... then yeah, I would like to have some level of ownership of it.” For Aero, the core of Web3 isn’t necessarily how much blockchain is involved but whether players get true ownership of their time and effort.

This divide showed a key tension in the space: Should Web3 focus on robust technical integration, or should it prioritize user experiences and ownership, even if the blockchain elements are minimal?

Is Web3 Integration All About Ownership?

The conversation then shifted to a deeper question: Is Web3 really just about ownership, or can it offer other benefits? Thrust argued that blockchain could go beyond asset ownership, emphasizing its potential to improve transparency and fairness in games. “The deeper we go into blockchain, the more transparent we become as a project... But I haven't seen the first project stopping to the anti-cheating mechanics that we can get out of blockchain.”


For Thrust, the real promise of Web3 lies in its ability to build trust and accountability between developers and players. He pointed out that while many projects focus on tokenized assets, fewer are leveraging blockchain for more practical aspects like preventing cheating. His perspective hinted at an untapped potential of blockchain—using it to ensure fairness and transparency rather than just as a means for tokenizing assets.

Mark.D.DARKTIMES.sui had a more minimalistic take, suggesting that Web3 is about presence rather than volume: “As long as there's at least one transaction in your game that goes through a blockchain, I think you could consider it a Web3 game.” However, he also questioned whether this technical classification was the most important aspect, emphasizing that the player’s enjoyment of the game might matter more. His comments touched on the tension between labeling and practical enjoyment—whether games should be defined by their tech or their impact on players.

Does Accepting Crypto Make a Game Web3?

The group then debated a contentious question: does simply accepting cryptocurrency make a game Web3? Aero³ pushed back against the idea, arguing that crypto integration alone doesn’t equate to a true Web3 experience: “For me, that isn’t Web3... If you're only purchasing in a cryptocurrency... there’s no element of ownership. You're just using a currency to nothing.”

He suggested that for a game to be Web3, it needs to grant players real, transferable ownership over in-game assets—something more meaningful than just paying with crypto. His stance reflected a broader sentiment that real Web3 gaming involves player agency and ownership, not just a token economy.

In contrast, DeFi_ZooRacer9000 saw a role for simplified blockchain integration, especially when it makes the user experience smoother: “I would call that a web three game... It’s like, you’re basically being able to easily onboard and interact with NFTs and assets and things like that, but not deal with the hassle of, you know, having to set up a wallet.” He argued that reducing the friction of blockchain onboarding could attract more players, even if the integration isn’t deep.


The contrast between their views highlighted another core tension: should Web3 be about ease of access or should it dig deeper into providing full ownership and player rights?

Final Thoughts: Where’s the Balance?

The space left listeners with a lot to think about when it comes to defining a Web3 game. Some, like Aero³, focused on ownership, stressing that “The ownership is just so important... For me, a web three game has to encompass those elements of ownership. Absolutely.” He underscored that player control over assets is a non-negotiable feature for a true Web3 experience.

Meanwhile, Mark.D.DARKTIMES.sui captured the crux of the debate with a simple statement: “If you can’t trade it, you don’t own it.” This line cut to the heart of the discussion, emphasizing that the ability to transfer, trade, or sell assets is what makes ownership real in the Web3 context.

As blockchain gaming continues to evolve, finding the sweet spot between too little and too much Web3 integration will be key. Whether it’s about providing ownership, reducing friction, or leveraging blockchain for transparency, the future of Web3 gaming seems to be all about balance—and that balance might look different for every game and every player.

4 views0 comments

Comentarios


bottom of page