Emerging Trends in Play-to-Earn (P2E) Games

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The current research stated that this research aims to establish the primary drivers influencing the development and consumers’ decision-making process in web3 games – decentralized games that function according to the play-to-earn paradigm. We observe several types of micro-economies developed within five play-to-earn games and highlight four roles consumers play at any given time. Our study offers a different perspective on rational consumer behaviour in cryptocurrency-based games and paves the way to better understanding their dynamics and evolution. Results shed light on the construction of in-game economies and how individuals of a given type engage in different playing activities. Furthermore, we compare the key features of web3 games with those similar to classic online games and assess if the play-and-earn implementations represent an evolution from previous revenue models. Using our proposed methodology, researchers can compare and classify any P2E games. We conclude by establishing a set of actions that enable consumers to benefit from this new phenomenon. However, the paper can offer insights pertaining to such context. Abstract and literature review are adequate. Methodology is clear; precise analyses have been carried out with the research objectives. Findings are fairly presented and the analysis is presented in a good manner and presenting new ideas. However, this research lacks proper theoretical & managerial implications. Thus, it will be better to have several separate sections that describe implications for academics and practitioners appropriately.

Author Response

This research lacks proper theoretical & managerial implications. Thus, it will be better to have several separate sections that describe implications for academics and practitioners appropriately.

 

Thank you for addressing this issue! We have included several new sections related to the theoretical and managerial implications. Furthermore, we have updated the Conclusions section to further emphasize the added value of our study. We have also introduced a separate section related to the methodology of an ethnographic study (section 2.3.2).

 

Here is the added/modified text in section 2:

We have settled to use ethnographic research as this is a reliable method for collecting data in the context of social and behavioural sciences. Ethnographic research is a qualitative approach used to study people and cultures in their natural settings. It involves immersing researchers in the context of the study, often for an extended period, to gain a deep understanding of the culture, behaviors, beliefs, and social interactions of the participants. This kind of research typically employs a variety of data collection techniques, including participant observation, interviews, field notes, and artifacts analysis.

Ethnographic research is a good match for player profiling because it allows for a deep and nuanced understanding of the motivation of players in their natural environment [58]. This type of research is particularly useful when studying emerging phenomena or exploring previously uncharted areas of inquiry, such as the intersection of gaming and cryptocurrency. Through in-depth fieldwork and observation, ethnographic research can uncover insights that may not be apparent through other research methods, such as surveys or experiments. It can also contextualize the market-shaping phenomenon by allowing researchers to explore the perspectives of the different actors involved in shaping the cryptocurrency markets, including players, developers, and investors. Another advantage of ethnographic studies is that they don’t require large amount of test subjects to achieve their purpose. Ethnographic research has been use before in appropriate contexts, e.g. for determining the gender difference in playing video games, the influence of interactivity in games, or for analysing player’s social activity [59-61].

The main methods that can be used within an ethnographic study are participant observation (actively engaging with the community and participating in their events), structured/semi-structured/unstructured interviews (gathering information, perspectives, and experiences related to the research topic), and field notes (recording observations, interactions, experiences, and behaviours).

 

Here is the added/modified text in section 3:

Given these 3 types of game economies, one of the most important aspects is which one is the best for game business developers? The answer depends on the purpose and the mechanics of the game which needs to be implemented. Determining the "best" game economy system among single-token, dual-token, and hybrid systems for game business developers depends on various factors, including the specific goals of the game, the target audience, technical considerations, and the developers' resources and preferences. Each system has its advantages and challenges.

Single-token systems offer a simplified ecosystem. Using a single token makes the economy easier to understand and manage for both developers and players. Players only need to deal with one token type for all in-game activities. However, single-token systems may face inflationary pressures over time as more tokens are produced through rewards and staking. Another drawback of single-token economies is the limited flexibility, as developers would find it difficult to effectively separate the functions of currency and rewards.

On the other hand, dual-token systems can isolate inflationary pressures by separating the functions of currency and rewards, potentially leading to a more stable economy. Developers have more control over the monetary policies of each token, allowing for better balance and adjustment. Unfortunately, these benefits come with an increased complexity to the game economy, both for developers and players.

Hybrid systems combine the advantages of both centralized and decentralized elements, offering a diverse gaming experience. They can overcome some of the limitations of fully decentralized systems, allowing for more flexibility. However, from the point of view of game developers, they would require additional development resources.

Ultimately, the choice of game economy system depends on the specific requirements, goals, and constraints of the game project. Developers may also consider user experience, economic stability, scalability, and regulatory compliance when designing the game economy. Conducting market research and analyzing player preferences can expedite the decision-making process.

 

Here is the added/modified text in section 4:

The first graphic from Figure 5 shows the evolution    of transfers of the AXS token and their cumulated amount. It is noticeable that the most intense trading period was during July-September, 2021. For comparison, the activity of SAND token spiked between November 2021 - April 2022. Cryptomines ETERNAL had the most transactions between October-December 2021. The follow-up periods differ for each of these games, as their game mechanics are fairly different. For instance, Axie transactions gradually decreased after the initial boom, but maintained an appeal that generated a new surge of transactions at the beginning of June, 2022. SAND players reached a critical mass – the transactions are selfsustained and continue on an ascendent trend, even after the main acceleration period, while Cryptomines activity completely stopped at the end of the 2021, denoting that its game mechanics presumed a complete termination. The last graph presents the number of NFT transactions for the Cryptokitties SC. As we can see, it diminished continuously after January 2018, as the public lost interest in the game activities.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is beneficial especially for game business. Some descriptions need to be clear for further uses.

 

1. The paper does not clearly specify the drivers that influence game developers and decisions of game players in selecting games, especially in the conclusion!

 

2. Please elaborate the ethnographic research methodology. Please add as a separate section.

 

3. Among 3 game economy systems, which one is the best for game business developers and why?

 

4. What is the critical idea regarding Fig. 5? What information do we get from that figure. Please discuss more thoroughly.

Author Response

1. The paper does not clearly specify the drivers that influence game developers and decisions of game players in selecting games, especially in the conclusion!

 

Thank you for underlining this issue. We have updated the Conclusions section to further emphasize the drivers linked to the two categories of stakeholders: game developers and game players.

 

Here is the added text:

Players select web3 games based on a variety of interconnected factors, some of which are highly dependent on individual preferences - one of the most important is monetary incentives (opportunities for earning real or virtual currency). As presented above, various web3 game activities attract multiple types of individuals. Other critical drivers include game mechanics (players are often drawn to games with engaging and well-designed mechanics that offer enjoyable gameplay experiences), game features (such as immersive storytelling, challenging quests, strategic decision-making, and rewarding progression systems), game genres (action, adventure, role-playing, simulation, or strategy), game community (opportunities for social interaction, collaboration and competition), reviews (recommendations from friends, reputation of a game studio, word-of-mouth endorsements), and accessibility (compatibility across different platforms). By comparison, the most important driver for web3 game developers is financial success. P2E games are easier to market, as players tend to invest more time and energy into a system that can also output some form of financial incentives. Moving on, we can also mention other factors such as cultural impact, passion for game development, artistic expression, technical innovation, player engagement, community feedback, and general recognition for their contributions to game development.

 

2. Please elaborate the ethnographic research methodology. Please add as a separate section.

Thank you for pointing this out. We have expanded section 2.3 Methodology, more precisely by restructuring section 2.3.1. Research objective and section 2.3.3. Data collection, and by creating the new subsection 2.3.2. Ethnographic research, to present the basis and the activities of a general ethnographic study, with applications in our research.

 

Here is the new section:

2.3.2. Ethnographic research

We have settled to use ethnographic research as this is a reliable method for collecting data in the context of social and behavioural sciences. Ethnographic research is a qualitative approach used to study people and cultures in their natural settings. It involves immersing researchers in the context of the study, often for an extended period, to gain a deep understanding of the culture, behaviors, beliefs, and social interactions of the participants. This kind of research typically employs a variety of data collection techniques, including participant observation, interviews, field notes, and artifacts analysis.

Ethnographic research is a good match for player profiling because it allows for a deep and nuanced understanding of the motivation of players in their natural environment [58]. This type of research is particularly useful when studying emerging phenomena or exploring previously uncharted areas of inquiry, such as the intersection of gaming and cryptocurrency. Through in-depth fieldwork and observation, ethnographic research can uncover insights that may not be apparent through other research methods, such as surveys or experiments. It can also contextualize the market-shaping phenomenon by allowing researchers to explore the perspectives of the different actors involved in shaping the cryptocurrency markets, including players, developers, and investors. Another advantage of ethnographic studies is that they don’t require large amount of test subjects to achieve their purpose. Ethnographic research has been use before in appropriate contexts, e.g. for determining the gender difference in playing video games, the influence of interactivity in games, or for analysing player’s social activity [59-61].

The main methods that can be used within an ethnographic study are participant observation (actively engaging with the community and participating in their events), structured/semi-structured/unstructured interviews (gathering information, perspectives, and experiences related to the research topic), and field notes (recording observations, interactions, experiences, and behaviours).

 

3. Among 3 game economy systems, which one is the best for game business developers and why?

Thank you for pointing out that this issue still needs to be clarified. We have improved and expanded section 4. Discussion, where we tackled this question in detail. 

Here is the added text:

Given these 3 types of game economies, one of the most important aspects is which one is the best for game business developers? The answer depends on the purpose and the mechanics of the game which needs to be implemented. Determining the "best" game economy system among single-token, dual-token, and hybrid systems for game business developers depends on various factors, including the specific goals of the game, the target audience, technical considerations, and the developers' resources and preferences. Each system has its advantages and challenges.

Single-token systems offer a simplified ecosystem. Using a single token makes the economy easier to understand and manage for both developers and players. Players only need to deal with one token type for all in-game activities. However, single-token systems may face inflationary pressures over time as more tokens are produced through rewards and staking. Another drawback of single-token economies is the limited flexibility, as developers would find it difficult to effectively separate the functions of currency and rewards.

On the other hand, dual-token systems can isolate inflationary pressures by separating the functions of currency and rewards, potentially leading to a more stable economy. Developers have more control over the monetary policies of each token, allowing for better balance and adjustment. Unfortunately, these benefits come with an increased complexity to the game economy, both for developers and players.

Hybrid systems combine the advantages of both centralized and decentralized elements, offering a diverse gaming experience. They can overcome some of the limitations of fully decentralized systems, allowing for more flexibility. However, from the point of view of game developers, they would require additional development resources.

Ultimately, the choice of game economy system depends on the specific requirements, goals, and constraints of the game project. Developers may also consider user experience, economic stability, scalability, and regulatory compliance when designing the game economy. Conducting market research and analyzing player preferences can expedite the decision-making process.

 

4. What is the critical idea regarding Fig. 5? What information do we get from that figure. Please discuss more thoroughly.

Thank you for pointing out that Figure 5 wasn’t sufficiently explained. We have included a complete explanation in section 4. Discussion.

Here is the added text:

ETHscan.io and BSCscan.io are the main transaction explorers of the Ethereum Mainnet and Binance Smart Chain.

The first graphic from Figure 5 shows the evolution   of transfers of the AXS token and their cumulated amount. It is noticeable that the most intense trading period was during July-September, 2021. For comparison, the activity of SAND token spiked between November 2021 - April 2022. Cryptomines ETERNAL had the most transactions between October-December 2021. The follow-up periods differ for each of these games, as their game mechanics are fairly different. For instance, Axie transactions gradually decreased after the initial boom, but maintained an appeal that generated a new surge of transac-tions at the beginning of June, 2022. SAND players reached a critical mass – the transac-tions are selfsustained and continue on an ascendent trend, even after the main accelera-tion period, while Cryptomines activity completely stopped at the end of the 2021, de-noting that its game mechanics presumed a complete termination. The last graph presents the number of NFT transactions for the Cryptokitties SC. As we can see, it diminished continuously after January 2018, as the public lost interest in the game activities.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well done research paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The updated version helps the reader get benefits of the paper.