Thread by @maxnichols

NFTs are harmful to games.

We already know that they're environmentally devastating, extract wealth into the hands of bad actors, and are mostly scams or worse.

But I'm a #GameDesign-er, and I also believe that they fundamentally harm the player experience.
(Thread 1/20)

There are two designs I've seen seriously pitched for using NFTs in games:
1. To give players unique items with tracked history
2. To enable "play to earn" models, where players can earn items and resell

(+various unworkable ideas floated by people who don't know development)

The first, and most obvious issue: neither of these things require, or are made any easier or better, by building them with NFTs and blockchain tech. NFTs provide no specific benefit. Here's why:
/3

"Unique" items are unique because the game has systems to make them unique, usually random generators. It doesn't come from the NFT.

The ownership or gameplay history that could be tracked could be tracked with a normal database, not requiring an energy-hungry blockchain setup.

"Play to earn" models require the ability for players to transfer ownership of items or resources in exchange for cash or other goods of real-world value, and for the game to respect that transfer of ownership.

This... already happens in games, and has for decades. /5

Some examples:
- Steam trading cards
- WoW gold sellers
- Selling MMO accounts on Ebay
- The Diablo 2 real-money auction house
- EVE Online game time cards

/6

A common refrain is "oh, but WE CONTROL what we buy, instead of the business"

That's absurd. Your NFT only exists and only has value in a context (the game) that is owned and controlled by a business. It could go away or change at no notice. /7

Best case: someone finds a way to implement blockchain tech+NFTs that DOESN'T have the carbon footprint, DOESN'T accept payment from cryptocurrencies, and... all that effort led them to a player experience that they could have already built anyways.

Outcome: No positive impact

But damningly, these things (with or without NFTs!) fundamentally make the actual experience of playing a game worse, for two main reasons:
- Business models intruding on creative decisions
- Extrinsic motivation depresses intrinsic enjoyment
/9

Business models have always had an impact on game design, of course:
- Arcade games needed frequent points of harsh failure
- Subscription MMOs needed to stretch out playtime
- $50-$70 boxed products have always had various audiences expectations around playtime, graphics, genre

But in the day-to-day details of design work, business models impose to lesser or greater degrees.

Designers working on a full-price boxed game in the 90s had 1 priority when making design decisions: make the player experience as good as possible in the time they had /11

In most games, you make purchasing decision outside the context of the game, in a Real Life™ mindset.

Business models like gacha games or NFT games use the psychology of game design to sell things to players (with time or money) WITHIN the controlled context of the game /12

The day-to-day details of design are now EXTREMELY relevant to the business.

Instead of "make a good game" standing alone as the main goal, now they have to balance two equal, competing goals:
- Make a good game
AND
- Convince players to buy
/13

What do you think is going to have a better player experience?:
A: A game made with the sole purpose of being as good as it can be
B: That same game where they also had to simultaneously upsell you on microtransactions
/14

(Sidenote: There are SOME ways that these "intruding into the game" business models can improve the experience:

-F2P creates higher player count for matchmaking
-The novel business constraints force innovation
-It funds the games' existence at all
-Lower barrier of entry)
/15

Whew, ok, last topic. First, some psych terms:
- Extrinsic motivation: An external reward that motivates someone to do something, like money, fame, validation
- Intrinsic enjoyment: When someone enjoys an activity for it's own sake
/16

Research shows that if someone intrinsically enjoys an activity, and you offer extrinsic motivation (a reward) for it, it will _reduce_ their intrinsic enjoyment.

In other words:
If someone pays you to do the thing you enjoy, you will probably enjoy it less.
/17

You may still enjoy receiving the extrinsic rewards! You might like the feeling of getting money. But you won't enjoy the journey as much.

Who do we think enjoyed World of Warcraft more? Goldsellers, or a player who's paying a monthly fee and has no real-life profit motive?
/18

This isn't clearcut. People experience rewards differently, are motivated in different ways or by different things.

(for some, even in-game loot systems can act like extrinsic rewards)

But "paying to play" vs "playing to get paid" is as clear-cut as it gets.
/19

So, in summary:
- NFTs are environmentally and socially harmful
- NFT game pitches are all either impossible or equally good without NFTs
- Embedding earning/selling of NFTs into games distorts every game design decision
- Most people enjoy "play to earn" games less

/thread

And to circle back around to what really matters here:
- "your players have no money because they got scammed"
- "Your players are all dead because of global warming"

...also harm the player experience in your game

Also this:

https://twitter.com/maxnichols/status/1442969864461713411?s=20