Play to Mint Considerations — Part 1

Emerging Concept after the “Play to Earn” bubble

Web3 gaming terminology often includes phrases like “Play to Earn,” “Move to Earn,” “X to Earn,” etc. Similarly, the term “Play to Mint” is increasingly spotted. There are also numerous Web3 games that, while not using the term directly, incorporate the “Play to Mint” concept.

Let’s delve deeper into “Play to Mint.” Since it’s a relatively new term without a set definition, this report will provide a definition based on observations in the Web3 gaming scene, highlighting its characteristics and anticipated advantages.

Understanding “Play to Mint” might prove beneficial for those exploring the future trends and potentials of Web3 games.

In this discussion, we’ll follow:

1. What is Play to Mint?
2. Comparing “Play to Earn” (Traditional) with “Play to Mint” in terms of NFTs
3. What we hope for from Play to Mint (Summary)

Please read on.

1. What is Play to Mint?

In the Web3 gaming world, it is a term that signifies:

・Earning, owning, and trading items, such as NFTs, through gameplay.

・Embracing this as a core concept or theme of the game’s ecosystem.

Most commonly, it’s used in the latter sense, often as a tagline for describing the unique features of a Web3 game project during marketing.

Typically associated features include:

・No direct sales from the game operator; NFTs can only be initially obtained through gameplay.

・Players can choose to mint in-game items as NFTs.

・Some games may not incorporate their own fungible tokens (varying by the game).

“Play to Mint” has become more prevalent as challenges with the “Play to Earn” concept have been realized and new alternatives are explored.

A related term is “Play to Own.” Since owning typically involves NFTs, the terms can be considered almost synonymous. Personally, the term “Own” seems more accessible to the general populace, but “Mint” seems to be used more frequently.

In a narrower sense, “Play to Mint” might be used as a catchy phrase to describe methods of distributing prizes, like for obtaining NFT rewards during beta test play events. The method aims to ensure that the most engaged users own items, such as 1st collection NFTs.

From my perspective, the future of Web3 games, often referred to as Play to Earn or GameFi, remains promising with the evolution of tokenomics and gameplay mechanics. Thus, I see “Play to Mint” as one of the concepts derived from “Play to Earn.”

2. Comparing “Play to Earn” (Traditional) with “Play to Mint” in terms of NFTs

Here, by comparing Play to Earn with Play to Mint, we aim to shed light on the benefits of the latter. Many games promoting Play to Mint have not yet been released, and even those that have don’t seem to be evaluated sufficiently in the Play to Mint context. So, we’re discussing the perceived benefits here.

At its core, the difference between the two revolves around the emphasis on “Earn” (earning) vs. “Mint” (owning). This results in distinct NFT utilities and ecosystem trends. By reflecting on these utilities and trends, as well as the user behaviors and economic dynamics influenced by Play to Earn, we aim to highlight the expected benefits of Play to Mint.

🎮 Play to Earn (Traditional) NFTs

(Utility and Ecosystem Trends)

• Often directly sold by game operators before the game’s release.
• Often come with a high price or a range of high prices.
• Typically have a token mining utility:

-Playing with the NFT yields tokens.

-The more valuable the NFT, the better the token-earning efficiency.

• Post-release, NFTs can be purchased directly from operators or through user-to-user trades.

(Challenges faced by games)

Firstly, the primary motivation for most players to buy NFTs shifted to acquiring tokens, enhancing token acquisition efficiency, and selling those tokens. Thus, during purchases, the potential financial returns of the NFTs became the main evaluation criterion.

In such an environment, a strategy known as “recoup investment first” became dominant. It involves quickly earning back the money spent on the NFT, then reinvesting a portion of the surplus earnings in additional NFTs. The objective is to always maintain a net profit.

This method of initial investment recovery and its optimal solution was shared at an astonishing speed. The motivation of users for initial investment recovery was high, leading to enthusiastic strategies. Additionally, in response to user requests for profitability information (the expected return on NFT purchases), the management meticulously documented this in white papers. This further accelerated the strategizing process. In some cases, games were almost completely strategized by users before their release. One reason why strategy information was widely shared was because users who had completed their initial investment recovery shared their methods to satisfy their desire for recognition that they had “mastered the game”, to invite new participants to inject money into the game economy, and to increase their follower count on X (the former Twitter).

As a result, the more time passed after the game’s release and the more participants joined, the greater the amount of money leaving the economy (selling pressure) grew. To maintain the game economy, it was necessary to invite new participants to buy NFTs for mining and create buying pressure. However, once these new participants have recovered their initial investments, they also create selling pressure. Thus, it becomes necessary to continually increase the pace of new participants and keep raising the buying pressure, which is nearly impossible in the long run. Consequently, the game economy declined, and in the worst case, collapsed.

(Desired game situation)

Originally, it was envisioned that a certain amount of money would remain in the game economy (liquidity) through gameplay. A certain number of participants would continue to pay even if the returns were negative for the enjoyment of the game, or they would reinvest the money earned from gameplay into repurchasing NFTs to enjoy further quests and increase profitability. Thus, while Play to Earn functions, the game economy would gradually grow amidst the selling pressure. This was the goal.

The above can be considered an excerpt about the challenges and issues faced by “Play to Earn (traditional)”. There’s a lot to write about, enough for an article on this topic alone. Many events have occurred, drawing a lot of attention and contemplation. I will limit the description to this for now.

🎮Play to Mint NFTs

(Utility and ecosystem trends)

• Items obtained through gameplay can be held as NFTs.
• There are NFTs that can only be primarily obtained through gameplay.
• An option to Mint is provided if one wishes to hold an item as an NFT. *1
• They offer utility as typical game items without token mining capabilities:

-Appearance for skins.

-Status UP for weapons.

…etc.

• The significance of turning game items into NFTs focuses on:

(Returning to the original value proposition of NFT games)

-Deep sense of ownership for users (the right to true data ownership**).

-Ensuring rarity.

-Improving transparency in item distribution and P2P trading by the management.

…etc.

• Sources of revenue for the management include:

-Minting (NFT conversion) fees.

-P2P trading fees.

-Payments to acquire NFTs or to improve acquisition efficiency:

・・・Purchasing NFTs.

・・・In-game items.

・・・Battle passes.

・・・…etc.

• Some games focus solely on using NFTs in-game and do not introduce original FTs. *2

**Different from the legal term of ownership.

(Expected game situation)

Firstly, it is expected to resolve the economic imbalance that Play to Earn faced.

Instead of pushing Play to Earn to the forefront, the focus is on attracting users who want NFT items (those who inject money into the game economy). The game economy thrives only when these users actively Mint and trade. The enjoyment of the game and immersion in its world influence the number of players who desire NFT items and the intensity of their desire, which in turn affects the price of items (NFTs).

If there’s no buying pressure as described above, the Play to Earn model cannot function. Thus, it’s believed that a balance between buying and selling pressures can be achieved more easily while constructing the game economy. Moreover, the price of NFTs fluctuates significantly based on the speculation and emotions of actual players. Additionally, strategizing for NFT acquisition tends to be more complex than token mining. For instance, if you can acquire a skin NFT by winning in a battle royale game, you need to hone your skills to win. If you can get a rare equipment NFT by defeating a powerful boss in a deep dungeon in an MMORPG, you need to consider character development and cooperative play. Compared to the earlier mentioned Play to Earn, it’s easier to create a complex ecosystem that breaks the pattern of increased selling pressure due to one-sided strategies.

One of the promising situations for the second point is to easily benefit players with high engagement. Not just with money, but those who pour time, passion, and skills into the game and perform can more easily acquire (Mint) items of high rarity.

The third point is a return to the origins as an NFT game. It encourages both developers and users to reconsider the significance of engraving item acquisition records on the blockchain. The romance of leaving items acquired through play as a form of memory, a testament to passion and skill, on a distributed network that is free, transparent, robust, and potentially eternal. It would be delightful if it serves as a term to direct attention to the fun and possibilities there.

Other expectations include:

As in *1, by providing an option to Mint, players can first play as a Web2 game. If interested, they can participate in item Minting and NFT transactions, promoting onboarding to Web3 games.

As in *2, without original FTs, no one can mention FT trades, FT prices, or charts. This reduces speculative heat. It can also easily mitigate the impression of a money game. Furthermore, the number of items to consider for the ecosystem decreases, making it simpler for developers to design and implement the ecosystem (including legal measures) and easier for users to grasp and accept the concept. Although it means not aiming for economic construction, governance, and DAO with original FTs, it’s still meaningful considering the current state of the Web3 scene.

3.Play to Mint Expectations (Summary)

Acquire and own in-game items through gameplay. Sometimes trade with other players. By making items NFTs, transparency, fairness, and durability of activities improve, enhancing the sense of item ownership. In a way, it seems like a return to the roots of what kind of user experience can be provided by making game items into NFTs.

By doing so, a sustainable economy with a balance between buying and selling pressures and a dynamic economy centered on gamers is hoped to be realized.

Moreover, simply, the joy and profound significance of being able to engrave game memories, proof of passion and skill on the blockchain. An unalterable and undeniable proof, something that can be easily shown to anyone as “your own” on a free and robust network. It’s also hoped to be an opportunity for many users to feel that significance once again.

In the second part, we plan to introduce games that might serve as examples for thinking about Play to Mint. We also plan to discuss the challenges and considerations that Play to Mint initiatives may face.

Thank you for reading until the end!