Incentivising Minigames Development with GHST

I guess we can even try sth like co-op mode with Contra rework mb? Possible?

Head thread updated with summary of the following discussions

Sorry. Could you explain more about it ?

I think it’s possible, to rework all the objects in contra force(sega game), by swaping the links to it’s content, to make a gotchi vs… game in contra style, + our stats suits the game like that the best IMO
I’m not dev, cant explain, or better to ask me a question in the right way, if you asking about my vision, like a google, you know xD

I think most of the devs are already into the Phaser and it doesn’t make sense for us to switch to another engine, especially one I never heard of. Sorry

1 Like

Linking my 2nd thread about making an Aarcade DAO using DaoHaus

(Crossposted from the Daohaus thread)

Real-world Arcades have to deal with many different game-makers, so it makes sense that they created a standardized system for playing (tokens) that rewards players with standardized awards (tickets), that can then be converted into real-world items (the prize counter).

The idea would be to mimic this structure, and make it easy for game devs to tap into the Gotchiconomy with their games by having a standard input (the game token) and an output (the prize ticket). Then AavegotchiDAO / Pixelcraft could setup the prize counter and stock it occasionally with GHST / NFT / Potions / Other prizes.

As long as we make this integration simple, and ensure that 3rd party games don’t allow cheating, I think this could be hugely powerful for unlocking the potential of the Gotchiconomy, even before the Gotchiverse Realm is live!

As for this thread, one way of generating rewards for the Prize Counter would be engaging in yield-generating activities with the pooled GHST. Excited to see where this goes!

5 Likes

Hello frens Long time no see.
So @Coyote posted his thoughts on the fee structure of the Aarcade and hopefully it is self-explanatory

Also pretty deep discussion happening on the Discord so I will point yall there as well.

Also would like to do a poll on the proposed fee structure.

  • pay 1 GHST to play 100 times of a single game (like SushiVaders)
  • pay X GHST to play for a limited time (only play time included)
  • pay X frens to buy a ticket that play limited amount of times
  • Game Dev mint a NFT to sell. That NFT is a time-limited pass to play a single game

0 voters

1 Like

For the vote, it should be pay 1 GHST to play X times of a single game.

Overall, I believe paying for a time-limited pass is more stressful then value it provides as it forces people to feel like they have to get their moneys worth. That, plus being more attractive and easier to bot, I don’t get what the pros are vs X amount of plays.

3 Likes

Okay. First choice is now “pay 1 GHST to play X rounds of a single game”

1 Like

Also, iv mentioned it in the past in the Discord

Paying with FRENS doesn’t make the entry point cheaper. It just complicates the process of adding to the prize pool and paying developers.

With FRENS, a developer that is less involved with Aavegotchi, will have to convert the frens to raffle tickets, to then sell at an unfixed price.

Whereas if you want to pay with FRENs, you as a player can do the same process and exchange them for GHST, thus simplifying the whole process.

3 Likes

My first thought is:
how about paying 1 GHST for the borrowing of an specific Aavegotchi to play X amount of games/limited time?
Thus the Aarcade could be connected with a Gotchi-Lending-Economy.
Aavegotchi-holders would have another source of ROI.
Maybe it would incentivize also the acquisition of Aavegotchis for non-holders.

I have a hard time accepting that requiring members to pay a fee just to have access to Aarcade games is necessary. Minigames are intended to be a regular part of of the Gotchiverse. There are multiple pay walls to get involved with Aavegotchi already. As things sit it costs at least the price of a new console (PS5, Xbox X), to obtain an Aavegotchi. With the extra burn percentage change going towards Pixelcraft is their not enough revenue to keep game Devs compensated? This upcoming Aauction we will most likely see some high bids as well, we don’t actually know how much will be coming in yet. I think requiring payment, even if it’s a small amount, sounds slightly counterintuitive to the gamefied aspects of Aavegotchi.

If the Aarcade will influence XP gains, and you must pay to earn those XP gains, what is the point of XP? The community understands XP as the one gain that reflects community involvement, especially once we no longer feel the effects of maal potions. I think it a poor idea to introduce a pay wall to have access to XP gain.

Since the payment is meant to fund prizes for the leaderboards as well, why don’t we create a premium leaderboard, where those who’ve opted to “donate” to the game specific Dev, would have access to the potential rewards? That way members can still Play to Earn, without the Pay to Earn pain points thrown into the mix.

1 Like

I should of made it more clear.

The developers will have a capped amount of EXP they can distribute on a monthly basis for being approved. This is only increased by the prize pool, therefore they could in theory be free to play as they currently are to earn EXP.

The matter at hand is, how can we think of a fair way for Arcade developers to be compensated? Simply saying, they get X amount from Pixelcraft doesnt quite work, as each game is different and without some sort of ambiguous metrics whos to say how much money the Arcade developers have brought to Aavegotchi?

This doesn’t mean Pixelcraft wont put out bounties and award Arcade developers in the future, or an Aarcade DAO with its own pool wont be created in the future.

This is more about creating a scalable option that we can bootstrap within the year that encourages developers to continuously improve their games.

1 Like

Keeping them free to play for XP is the ideal imo.

I like the idea of paying a premium to have access to a leaderboard incorporating further prizes, access to different levels, more XP, etc… And I think there would be plenty of users opting to pay for it, while still allowing newcomers to feel involved with their free to play atmosphere.


1 Like

I like pay 1 GHST for X number of plays depending on the game. It should be up to the developer to create prize pools, tournaments or random drops that distribute a portion of the GHST they obtain from paying players. This entices players to play paid version of the mini-game (and potentially earn more then what they input depending on skill level).

In addition, I don’t see a problem in paying to play to earn at least some XP from the developers XP pool. Gotchi “XP Potions” currently go for roughly 1xp per GHST on the bazaar so if I could pay 1 GHST to earn say 50xp in a mini game I would.

Also 100% agree each game should have free mode! Would be good to have some XP available or random prizes in this mode too. And then ultimate free mode in which a player who doesn’t even own a gotchi can start earning some GHST or get access to random prize pools. But again, both of these modes should be at the discretion of the developer to incorporate. Heck if you wanted your game to be 100% free and dish out XP you should still have that option if it brings players to the ecosystem.

2 Likes

@SlickBB
Basically I am also in favour of the pay-to-play-to-earn model. By contributing a possibily small amount of GHST plus one skills, they can have a chance to win big prizes.

However, I’m against the idea that free-to-play players can earn GHST. I see free2play as a trial version of the minigames. Players, even without a gotchi, can get a chance to test play the minigames to see if it suits their tastes. Giving rewards to those free2play players does not seem fair to those pay2play players. It even cannot help support the community devs as there are no economical incentives to develop.

Therefore free2play players can only play the trial versions of the minigames, cannot participate on the leaderboards and also potentially win prizes.

One thing I’m considering is the limitations of entry. If we only limit gotchis to play the minigames, then we can potentially develop a rental model, where gotchi holders can rent out idle gotchis to other players to play, given that the rented gotchi has its game tokens charged up.

I guess it would be up to the developers of the game if they wanted to incentivize free2play for their game? They could have a separate leaderboard for free2play if they wanted to attract more players to the game, who may eventually convert into paid players.

Definitely agree with the rental model. That has to happen before the Aarcade goes live, and will be a huge catalyst for Aavegotchi’s growth even before the Gotchiverse comes out.

1 Like

guess it would be up to the developers of the game if they wanted to incentivize free2play for their game? They could have a separate leaderboard for free2play if they wanted to attract more players to the game, who may eventually convert into paid players.

A separate leaderboard is really a better idea. They can like compete with themselves over there. If they feel they have a better chance, they can deploy a gotchi to play / rent a gotchi to help them play.

Also Im beginning to feel that renting gotchi infra will be tightly connected to the Aarcade