I dived down the rabbit hole to find this thread just to post my opinions as I had an old project that tried to create an arcade protocol so here are some old notes to help out and give my opinion:
To add onto this post, multiple rewards models need to be debated and considered and honestly multiple rewards distribution models should be allowed in the beginning. Honestly I don’t think one model should be used over the rest because different games would do rewards differently. One minigame may be a contest so there will be losers that don’t get anything, and the other is a minigame RPG with in game currency that splits the lobby’s total staked amount across the currencies each player allocated.
Subscription models are a terrible idea in my opinion and should require a premium purchase option for each game as well. The only way to have subscription be fair is if it were allotted for game creators at a specific rate. An equation regarding a games plays per day/month/year, age, downloads per day/month/year, should be used to ascertain a game’s current worth to determine monthly royalty payouts to the game creators. This is all trusting the developers to be good people, which already seems a bit centralized. I just don’t really trust a subscription model, but it could be an option to game creators. As a matter of fact, there should be many financial options for players, but it needs to be an improvement among the typical GameFi structure where checks and balances are needed.
Original Use Case (I believe it’s similar to cartridges):
Actors: Game Creator, Contest Creator, Player
Assets: Master NFT, Slave NFT
Player 1 can’t afford to buy a game, but there is an arcade option known as the slave NFT, a version of the game that requires a fee per play, like an arcade cabinet game. The fee structure is set by the game creator for the slave NFT game. I want to play that game, but I can’t/don’t want to/can’t afford to buy it
Player 2 wants to buy the game, they pay a one time premium fee set by the game creator and own 1 NFT copy of the game and can play it as many times as they want. I want to buy the game
Player 3 owns the game, has played it a long time, and believes they are better than most people. Player 3 starts a gaming contest, open on the lobbies to players to try to have the highest score for the highest reward. This is using cryptocurrency to revive a dead icon of 90s culture, arcade contests. It’s not exactly gambling, it’s a contest of skill and people that enter fund the purse. It’s also important to note that the reward distribution structure is where everything goes wrong. Players that own the Master NFT game can make contests, and should be able to have multiple to choose from. A lot of rewards involve a problematic quantity reward structure, which sucks. A contest that says prizes are for the top 10,000 players, simply isn’t as good as a contest that gives prizes to the top X% of players. This is because traditional gaming has a capacity of a few million (made up this figure), but the metaverse is meant to service hundreds of millions of players (Also made up but eventually it will engulf traditional(US,EU) and emerging(India, Philipines) markets), and this is only the beginning. Each gaming contest needs a max time the contest can go on, preventing clutter. Rewards should be paid with contest creators choice, it seems everyone loves FRENS but I’d rather get GLTR as a reward. contest creators decide the contest entry fee. I own the game, I’ve played many years, and I believe I can make money against other players, I will take the risk of smart contract deployment, as it’s possible no one will play within the time frame
In short, a gaming contest contract is easy. Take in a score per entry fee and stake money, end contest after certain conditions, pay out due to rewards structure set by contest creator and agreed upon by every player. The rewards structure needs be shown to each player on a graph so they understand the risks. Some contests might reward the top 10%, but others will be more fair for the top 50%.