One of the creators of Magic: The Gathering is Richard Garfield, and he's well known to many in the gaming world. The veteran gamemaker, Garfield, is dipping his toes into the world of digital and in particularBlockchain-adjacent games, and he was asked about the pros and cons of this new approach to gaming.
Garfield's new game is not focused on speculation but more of an experiment in distribution of a complete card based game.
The game platform is full of the usual NFT and monetization chatter, but the core game is capable of being played with ordinary playing cards or numbered pieces of paper. I played a few rounds with him that way and it was enjoyable and straightforward, but we had to stop early. There is a follow-up game unrelated to Garfield's design and which uses more rarity/stat/token-focused mechanics.
Why is it worth it to introduce things into a game? Why is the asset worth the risk when you have consumer fears about FTX?
Garfield says there are benefits to not being tied to paper. There is a chance to sell people games which are digital but ownable. There is a lot of negative baggage along with whatever positive it brings to the table when you compare what has evolved in other digital spaces.
It has nothing to do with a tracking mechanism for ownership of a card or something. They can be confused with one another. Is that just a way for people to learn? Is that a brand thing?
Garfield says it's all the above and more. It is also a designer and a publisher. I think there is some caution in this space, because a lot of the design has been in an area which I don't think is healthy for games, which is trying to conflate it with speculation. It was very bad for the game to have people buying just to see their money increase. It interfered with the game as a game.
The image is of a group of people.
A lot of the designers and publishers are saying that they want to make a lot of money. That is not a good thing for game design, but not a good thing for players ownership of digital assets. Negative qualities of free to play aren't a part of free to play. There are some things that are hard to avoid because of the revenue model. There is a lot of confusion and reasons for it.
TC: At the beginning of Magic, I’m curious what kind of blowback you got at the time regarding both the business model and the unanticipated hoarding of valuable cards, taking them out of play. Was there skepticism that this was a valid gaming model, and a valid business model? And do you think that kind of reaction is also happening now?
A lot of the designers and publishers these days are embracing that and saying, ‘join this game now, make a lot of money.’ That’s not healthy for game design, but is not intrinsically a part of players ownership of digital assets anymore.
There was some doubt. It was a lot of work to get past that. It was not popular inside Wizards of the Coast. The problem was that as the prices went up with speculation, everybody drew comparison to the comic book market or Cabbage Patch Kids, and got really popular, and then always bust.
I didn't pay much attention to collectibles when I first started. I thought that this speculation was terrible for the game and that there was no upside for the players.
We had to make it so that it wasn't appealing to collect so that we could bust it. Some people at the company thought that we had sunk the product. The value of the collection went down for some players. The game grew at that time. It was a game in the end. The people who were playing the game were doing it because they loved the way the game was played.
Is there a chance that something will have to happen with digital ownership? How do you show that model is correct? I know that people will be skeptical and wonder if I will get the rug pulled out of me once I invest a couple hundred dollars in this game.
Garfield says you have to trust your publisher. The publisher can always make it worse.
The image is of a group of people.
People don't buy Settlers of Catan because they don't worry about whether the publisher will make the game weaker, they buy it because they know they can play it. Digital ownership may appeal to people because they don't have to rely on the publisher. When they are in charge of an ongoing environment, they only need the publisher to be fair.
There is a point where people can say, "Hey, I paid my 50 bucks, I have that digital copy." People will play a PC game on steam. If it gets more complicated, you know, NFT based instances of cards.
If you want your game engine to be provided by someone, you need to trust them. The story is done. There are other ways to get here. The community will determine whether those will evolve or not.
The board game that I have worked on here is a completely fair game and I was very firmly in the board game category. The only reason I became interested in the project was because of the publisher's support.
The numbers 1-8 and some other minor things are functionally the same for all even though they are treated as NFTs or some other owned digital items. These items can be used in different ways.
People can play that part of the game on their own, or someone can create a new framework for it. That is simple and easy. The game is very similar to a traditional game in that you buy a box and can play.
I feel like my readers are going to question why I'm not buying the game on Steam. What is the difference between a free to play situation and a free to play situation where I pay $50? All the cards are in my possession. What are the advantages of this approach over the traditional model?
Garfield thinks that the advantages have been overstated. I didn't see the advantage of a server based system for a long time, that's the reason I've been out of it for so long. Because of this free to play expectation, it's hard to get certain games done in the digital space.
Like there’s a lot of games that, in theory, yeah, you could just put it on Steam, or put it up on iOS and have people download and play it. But you actually can’t do that, because you can’t charge for it. And if you put it up for free, you got to pay for it. And if you start attaching some free to play monetization to it, you’ve got advertisements or, you know, you got to fill a bar, or do cosmetics, or something which may not be of interest to designers or the players.
The key thing which got me involved is just how hard it is to get certain games done in the digital space, because of this free to play expectation.
For example, if the game is being done here, it could be done on Steam or on the App Store. The games that are in this description have been hard to get going because you have to make it free. You have to put in advertisements. I like working with paper publishers because they can put a card game in a box and sell it to the public. That is a revenue model.
There has been a huge resurgence of the game. Everyone is playing with paper, everyone is playing with cardboard, and it is great. Gloomhaven has both a paper and digital version, which makes it a success. I want to know how you think it will play out over the next few years as both digital and analog games become more popular.
Garfield is excited about that area. It would take me a long time to talk about that. I have been interested in that area. I was struck by how I liked computer games when I was in the late 90s. I'd play Team Fortress. I would play a game and then play another game.
How are these in the same place? There are more games that are similar to the board games I like, but taking advantage of all the things which have to be offered digitally.
Slay the Spire is one example of a game that takes full advantage of the computer and doesn't make you just play twitch games or something like that.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
