Why the Metaverse is Bad for Blockchain and Games (and What We Should Do About It)

Back in the early-to-mid-2010s, I missed the first Roblox hype train because I almost exclusively played League of Legends (yes, unfortunately, I was one of those people) and if I did play any sandbox-like games, I played Minecraft. I pretty much just went through my first 22 years without ever knowing what Roblox actually looked like. So when I downloaded Roblox the other night, looked through their collection of games, and tried playing some of the games, I was a bit disappointed.

I expected a super creative and fun creator economy — I guess similar to the minigames I’ve played in Minecraft — but all I saw was a social platform with roleplaying chat rooms for kids and pay-to-win, pay-to-play minigames.

And then it clicked. I thought, “Of course the metaverse (and everything it stands for) sits so uncomfortably with me if Roblox is its North Star.”

I did some more research on Roblox’s history, its players, and creators, I spoke to some of my friends who had played it back when we were in Middle School, and I came to the conclusion that Roblox is simply not-so-great as both a creator economy and a game, and it’s really just a game platform with roleplaying chat rooms disguised as a game.

I really do respect the concept of a creator-driven economy, and the idea that Roblox can encourage kids and young adults to learn game development is great. However, Roblox is disappointing because its approach has led to (in my opinion) bad games and an unattractive creator-economy that takes advantage of its players and creators. To learn more, take a look at this, this, and this.

And this is what the metaverse looks up to?

The Metaverse is not the Future of Blockchain or Games

This is because the metaverse, at least in its current definition, is just a rebrand of game platforms like Roblox, and social platforms like IMVU and SecondLife (both of which also have creator economies). The metaverse is not a new concept that’s forwarded by blockchain — all it did was destigmatize the concept of doing things with an avatar in a virtual world. Before the metaverse, it was cringy. But now, apparently, it’s the future.

I realized this when I talked to my mom about the metaverse and asked her what she thought about it. She’s a hardcore engineer who has been working in finance at large banks for the majority of her career and she loves talking about blockchain and NFTs. To her, the metaverse meant that she could, for example, talk to her family in China “face-to-face”, hug them, and interact with them (with her avatar, of course). But doesn’t that sound familiar? It’s something that you can do in pretty much any social “game”. And before all this metaverse talk, she had laughed at games like Roblox, IMVU, and SecondLife where you can do exactly what she thinks the metaverse can do.

(Sorry for exposing you, mom. Love you!)

So, if the metaverse is nearly synonymous with social “games”, I definitely don’t think that it’s the future of games. Again, social “games” are barely games — they’re more or less social platforms with a unique art style and avatars. They’re a category of games if anything, and by saying that metaverses are the future of games we’re also saying that all the other game genres will be insignificant and overshadowed by 3D social platforms and minigames. And that’s kind of depressing.

I also just want to add that I don’t want to have to do everything in a virtual world. There seems to be a push for social events, networking events, etc. to be in the metaverse. After spending 10 hours each day on my computer staring at Unity, Photoshop, Illustrator, and Discord, I’d much rather go out, touch grass, and meet people in person.

This is a great article that breaks down the concept of the metaverse in its current state. I highly recommend checking out.

So What Now?

If the underlying purpose of talking about the metaverse is to move forward and explore the use cases of blockchain as a technology, especially in the games space, I think we should move on from using “metaverse” as a buzzword.

The space has been over-saturated with NFT and metaverse projects and pitches, and I think we’re all ready to move on.

It’s definitely been refreshing to see a select few of the newer “blockchain game” projects that have been getting funded (Wildcard and Moonfrost to name two of the outstanding ones I’ve seen so far). They are much less dependent on using words like “metaverse”, “NFTs”, and “crypto” and I have a great amount of hope that we’re finally beginning to take some steps forward in exploring what putting games on chain will actually mean for the games industry.

My team of game developers at Test Jar Labs has been exploring the purpose of building games on chain as well — and we’re hoping to experiment with and prove use cases with a really cool casual-competitive mobile game. If you’re interested in reading about how we’re approaching blockchain, take a look at my last article: a high-level overview of where we hope the games industry can move towards.

Let’s keep the conversation moving. Let me know what you think!

Special thanks to Kristen Halim and Jeron Artest for helping me write this article.