Gaming

More musings on what it means to be "fully" on-chain for a game. Would, literally, each and every user interaction need to be individually committed as a tx, or could you roll user actions up into fewer txs? E.g. the average chess game is ~40 moves. Would you need to make 40 txs or 1 tx with all the moves?

/gaming

Jack of All Trades 🃏 • Successful VC, builder, and content creator 🦾 • Gaming & Infra Focus 🔍 • Building the PRIME ecosystem at @echelon 🏗

yes, everything is a transaction. most FOCGs are designed around lower-fees, so running on L2s or similar

CEO of Kamigotchi.
@kamigotchi /kamigotchi 


Current L2 feels still feel incredibly high for most gamers to be DAU of FOCGs that require dozens or even hundreds of tx per day. Obviously you cannot just clone games and put them on-chain. But the cost of FOCG for a users *is* an important fact in the attention economy IMO

right now FOCG aren't aimed at most gamers, they're aimed at crypto natives. by the time normal gamers are a concern costs will be down 95%+

Will need to see these fees actually come down in practice. Other thing I am watching is the infra cost of running a chain. As a developer of FOCG do I use an existing network (maybe Eclipse or another L2) or go the app chain route? RN I think the cost of running a chain doesn't make sense for 99% of teams.

I do think teams like Eclipse running the SVM for execution on effectively an Ethereum rollup may pave the way towards this. However just been thinking about a talk Neel Somani gave last year on RaaS and the general cost to the chain/sequencer operator to run the sequencer set and think it might be a bit further off.

Agree, but again the cost of running a chain keeps going down dramatically. It's very easy to set up an L2 now, I don't think we're too far from it being trivial.