Is There Actually a Game That Requires Blockchain?

In my previous post, Can a Blockchain Game Exist Without Coins, NFTs, or Play-to-Earn?, I started with a question:

What happens if we forget about coins, NFTs, Play-to-Earn, and all the other things commonly associated with blockchain games, and start with only Blockchain + Game?

Previous post: Can a Blockchain Game Exist Without Coins, NFTs, or Play-to-Earn?

That left me with a harder question:

Is there actually a game that requires blockchain?

So I started looking at some of the obvious examples.

　

Axie Infinity

Axie Infinity was the first one that came to mind.

The official Axie marketplace describes Axies like this:

“Battle, collect, breed, and befriend these adorable creatures.”

The marketplace itself tracks Axies, owners, listings, genes, breed count, and other properties.

Source: Axie Infinity — Official Marketplace

Breeding goes further than simply creating another character.

According to the official breeding guide, offspring can inherit characteristics from their parents:

“the offspring has a chance of inheriting parts and traits from either parent.”

The same guide describes dominant and recessive genes and the probabilities of those genes being passed to offspring.

Source: Axie Infinity — Axie Breeding Guide

At first, this seems close to what I was looking for.

But then I tried removing the blockchain mentally.

An Axie could still have an ID.

It could still have stats and genes.

Its parents could still be recorded.

It could still be bred.

It could still fight.

It could still be transferred from one player's account to another.

All of that could be stored in a normal database.

The ownership model would be different, of course.

But the game itself would still work.

So Axie seemed to use blockchain in meaningful ways, but I couldn't say that the game was technically impossible without it.

　

Gods Unchained

Gods Unchained made the distinction even clearer.

It is a trading card game.

You collect cards, build decks, and battle other players.

Blockchain adds ownership, trading, and crypto-related systems around those cards.

But the card game itself doesn't appear to require all of that.

The current official Getting Started guide walks a new player through creating an account, installing the game, and logging in.

After those steps, it says:

“Technically, this is all you need to play the game.”

It then explains what changes if you don't link an external crypto wallet:

“You will not be able to trade (buy or sell cards) without a linked wallet.”

The same section says that without a linked wallet, players also miss features such as the Forge, Weekend Ranked, and Daily Play & Earn.

Source: Gods Unchained — Getting Started

That suggests something interesting:

The game and the blockchain layer can be separated.

Replace the NFT cards with cards stored in a normal account database, and you can still build decks and play matches.

The ownership and economy would be different.

But the basic card game would remain.

　

The Sandbox

The Sandbox is different again.

Its official LAND page describes the virtual world as being made up of LAND:

“owned by players to create and monetize experiences.”

The same page says there is a fixed supply of 166,464 LANDs and lists uses including hosting games, building multiplayer experiences, housing, and social experiences.

The creator side is also explicit:

“Create NFT Assets, Games, Experiences & More.”

The page describes selling creations through the NFT Marketplace and charging for access to experiences.

Source: The Sandbox — What is LAND?

Those are real differences.

But I tried the same test.

Could a centralized platform let users control virtual plots, build experiences on them, visit other users' creations, and trade those plots?

Yes.

The ownership relationship would change.

The platform operator would become the authority over the database.

But the basic game and creation systems could still exist.

　

Play-to-Earn Doesn't Solve It Either

I also thought about Play-to-Earn.

Maybe earning something with real value was the part that fundamentally required blockchain.

But that doesn't seem right either.

A centralized game could keep a player's balance in a database and allow rewards to be exchanged or paid out under whatever rules the operator sets.

Blockchain changes important things around that reward:

Who controls it?

Can it leave the game?

Can it be transferred without the game operator?

Can a third party verify it?

But earning something by playing is not, by itself, a blockchain-only mechanic.

　

So Far, I Haven't Found One

At least so far, I haven't found a game where I can confidently say:

This game is technically impossible without blockchain.

That doesn't mean such a game doesn't exist.

I'm not an expert on every blockchain game, and there may be examples I haven't seen.

But the examples I looked at made me realize that I may have been asking the wrong question.

If we allow one trusted operator to run a server and control a database, that operator can reproduce an enormous amount of functionality.

Ownership.

Trading.

Scarcity.

Breeding.

History.

Rewards.

Even interoperability can be reproduced if the same operator controls all of the systems involved.

So perhaps the useful question isn't:

Can this game exist without blockchain?

Maybe it is:

What meaningfully changes when blockchain is replaced with a normal database?

Who becomes the authority?

Who can rewrite the history?

What survives if the operator disappears?

Who is allowed to build on top of the data?

Maybe that's where the interesting difference actually is.

So I'm changing the question.

Not:

Blockchain Required?

But:

Blockchain Preferred?

That's what I'll try to figure out next.