Recently, I’ve been pondering a question: why does the enthusiasm for blockchain games among Web3 players seem to be declining? I believe the core issue lies in the design of the economic model.

The most fundamental difference between blockchain games and traditional games is the promise of "play-to-earn." While enjoying the game itself, the tokens, items, and NFTs you acquire within the game truly belong to you and can be traded and monetized on the market. This is completely different from virtual assets in traditional games, which are just account data and ultimately owned by the game company.

But there is a contradiction here. Blockchain game users roughly fall into two categories: one is genuinely passionate about the gaming experience—product-oriented users, and the other is investment-oriented users who are in it for the profits. Currently, most players in the Web3 space are the latter. The problem is, these investment users don’t have much time or energy to deeply experience the game; they just want quick profits. This puts a lot of pressure on project developers.

If the P2E (Play-to-Earn) returns are set too high, the project will collapse quickly. The economic model becomes unbalanced, and neither the project team nor the investors can make money. Many blockchain game projects I’ve seen die this way—initially attracting a large number of players with high yields, then experiencing rapid inflation, and finally token dumps, causing everyone to lose.

Therefore, current blockchain game designers are essentially walking a tightrope, trying to find a balance between "attracting investors" and "maintaining economic sustainability." That’s also why truly viable blockchain game projects are becoming fewer. With Bitcoin fluctuating around $79.18K and market sentiment remaining cautious, blockchain gaming needs solid game design and healthy economic models to survive.