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 🏗

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

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

You could cache state before committing it on-chain -- don't have to use strongly persistent storage especially when things like Redis have a reasonable leve of persistence. But yeah, I tend to agree that for most game types I cannot see the argument for them being fully on-chain.

The latter wouldn’t get rid of the need for a DB or storage in the middle of the game so not fully on chain. I don’t really see a point to fully on chain games in most cases. Especially since playing a game created by a central party necessitates trusting them anyways, why pay the extra cost?