RE: Pay2Win - Blockchain Gamings Downfall?

The main difference with blockchain games like Splinterlands is that the cards and assets have real world value and can be readily sold for real money. In a lot of traditional computer games, companies can afford to be generous because it doesn't really cost them anything, and most in-game assets can not be readily sold or traded.

Because the blockchain assets have real world value, at the end of the day, the money for the rewards has to come from somewhere. If tons of people are playing the game to earn rewards and sell them, but aren't putting money into the game, then where is that money coming from?

While Synergy of Serra has an interesting concept, I just don't see how it is sustainable. If there is no incentive to owning your own cards then why would people buy cards at all? And if that is the case, how is the game going to continue to get funding if no one buys cards and just uses their opponents' cards instead? I won a Splinterlands tournament hosted by Synergy of Serra and got 62 Transcendent Crates + 62 Base Set Crates but honestly I'm a bit uncertain about Synergy of Serra because the economics don't seem sound.

I suppose one option is to have different foil types which have the same play value but some are more collectible. Splinterlands already does this with Gold Foil. Gods Unchained has 4 foil "shine" types.

Ultimately, Splinterlands' model is much closer to Type I Magic the Gathering. If you want to play at the very top of Type I, you need power cards like Black Lotus, the Moxes, Time Walk, etc. But one key difference is that Splinterlands makes trustless borrowing and renting possible due to their delegation system. In Magic the Gathering, lending someone your Black Lotus and Moxies involves a lot of risk but it can be done safely in Splinterlands. And while buying max level cards can be a major hurdle, renting max level cards is far far more affordable.

Personally, I think the biggest flaw in the blockchain gaming space (including with Splinterlands) is there is too big of an emphasis on earning and investing. I come from a gaming background and I think it's better when players have a consumption mindset. They are paying for enjoyment and the experience. They aren't expecting to make money or to be able to recoup what they have spent. Instead, we have a lot of participants who are focused only on making money off their investment and hitting their ROI benchmarks. A lot of blockchain games initially court such investor players because they can provide useful capital but the game can suffer if they are too beholden to investment interests. It's like when a company loses sight of its mission statement and the needs of its customers because it is solely focused on maximizing profit for the shareholders.

It's great that Splinterlands has such an international playerbase. And it's really interesting that some players in developing countries can earn more money playing this game than they could earn from regular jobs. (Though for those in developed countries, the earnings are less than you'd get working a minimum wage job). The issue once again comes down to basic economics. If lots of people simply view the game as a money making mechanism, aren't putting money into the game, and are only focused on extracting what they earn, then where is the money coming from and how can you keep it sustainable?