Derivative Effects Of Design Changes
Do Premium Free-To-Play Currencies Make Ideal Play-To-Earn Game Tokens?
In this article, I want to dig deeper into a design choice I discussed briefly in my last article: the need to separate Game Specific Tokens (GST) from Grind Currencies in Play-To-Earn games.
Many of today’s cryptogaming experts believe that separating these elements is essential in Play-To-Earn games, because failing to do so has the potential to cause economic problems when a limitless token supply is created by players performing in-game activity repeatedly during play (i.e. grind).
In my last article I discussed the practicalities of turning an existing Free-To-Play game into a Play-To-Earn game. I outlined an alternative token design that uses the Game Specific Token as a "catalyst" to facilitate any transactions between a Grind Currency and a Premium Currency, rather than using it directly as a Grind Currency or Premium Currency itself. At first glance this solution appears to elegantly solve several tricky design issues, such as preserving the economic model of the Free-To-Play game without reducing or compromising existing game features, while also allowing the business to test and optimise different designs for token issuance ahead of any public launch.
By feeding player data from the live game into the development version it would be possible to model the effects of different token designs without impinging on players of the existing Free-To-Play game. On the surface this approach seems to deliver a proper Win/Win/Win outcome that provides additional benefits for players, while also minimizing potential risks and maximizing potential returns for the business.
That said, as someone who’s been designing games for a long time now, I’m extremely sceptical of taking such claims at face value. Modern games are complex systems whose behaviours are difficult to model due to the dependencies, incentives, competitions, and other subtle types of interactions between a game’s rules and its players’ responses to them. If experience has taught me anything it is that game design is "the art of the compromise"; a discipline that requires the constant consideration not only of intended primary effects on player behaviour, but also their unintended derivative effects as well. These derivative effects of primary rule changes with the best of intentions can often lead to unintended consequences. Experienced game designers can usually sense these second, third, or even fourth order effects of a primary rule change intuitively, and steer away from the more obvious ones that might successfully solve the primary problem, but introduce a secondary or tertiary problem in the process.
Therefore, when any experienced game designer sees a rule change claiming to be a Win/Win/Win for all parties, without any deleterious impacts on other areas of the system, they immediately get very, VERY suspicious! For that reason, I wanted to use this article to show how I typically interrogate my own designs, and particularly while considering possible derivative effects, just in case I may have missed something during my initial enthusiastic assessment of the “catalyst” token design.
Claim #1: it satisfies the Value Design requirement since there are no changes needed to the existing economic model of the Free-To-Play game. This claim asserts that Players can continue playing just as they did before by choosing to ignore the Game Specific Token entirely if they want, which would appear to satisfy the Value Design requirement. Furthermore, it preserves the existing Free-To-Play economy, with any additional economic value arising spontaneously as a result of the token's utility as a catalyst for turning the game’s Grind Currency into Premium Currency.
Let's consider these points regarding the impact on Value Design in more detail and with added scepticism.
Does the existing economic model really not change when a Game Specific Token is added in a catalyst role? I mean, obviously the model does literally change since introducing the ability to convert Grind Currency to Premium Currency is a huge rule change in-and-of itself. But the spirit of the statement is that it's the only change, and that all other economic incentives within the game's economy would remain "as is”. That's certainly the primary first-order effect at least. As shown by the Economy Map (above) it's simply a case of turning the unidirectional arrow that currently flows from the Platinum to the Gold currency into a bidirectional arrow. No other change would be necessary.
With that clarification made, what about additional derivative impacts that may not be so obvious?
The claim assumes that there are no changes needed to the existing economic model of the Free-To-Play game; however, that may not be true. Introducing a Game Specific Token could have unintended implications for the existing economy, particularly depending on how it's designed and implemented. For example, if the token permitted some players to bypass or circumvent certain gameplay mechanics that are integral to the game's economy, it could create imbalances and disrupt the value proposition for others. That being the case, it's important to appreciate that it's not simply the general principle of using a Game Specific Token as a catalyst for conversion between Grind and Premium currencies that matters. Rather, it is the specific design and implementation choices that are made within any individual game, and that's an important point for any potential investors in these types of projects to be aware of. It's why I consider the team itself to be such an important element in any innovative creative project, never more so than in game development. That’s because “Design” isn't a one-time event, where someone thinks up "The Design" and then an easily interchangeable anonymous cast of workers implement "The Design" exactly as initially dreamt up. I liken this to the relationship between architects and civil engineers - both have to do their jobs well before we'd want to walk across one of their bridges, or climb to the top of one of their skyscrapers. It's possible to completely undermine a perfectly good architectural aim with poor civil engineering choices, because it's not simply the overall vision that matters but the specific implementation of it at each stage of construction as well. It will be like this when it comes to converting Free-To-Play games to Play-To-Earn games - teams will need to keep the overall vision in mind while solving an inevitable myriad of additional problems that will only emerge during the construction process itself. Without an appropriately skilled team that sees the big picture and appreciates the important link between these two aspects of design and implementation, it would be possible to skilfully implement a poorly considered vision, just as easily as it would be possible to poorly implement a masterfully considered vision. Unfortunately the market isn’t likely to reward solving either of those problems on their own; it’s only likely to reward solving both of them together, and that is why assembling the right team to tackle the overall mission is so critical to the success of a project such as this.
The claim asserts that players can continue playing as they did before, by choosing to ignore the Game Specific Token entirely; however, it's not clear how many players would choose to do so or how this would affect the overall player experience. If the token provides significant advantages or benefits that are not available through the existing Free-To-Play economy, it could create a two-tiered player base, with some players feeling excluded or disadvantaged. This is another important reason to remain mindful of such possibilities throughout the design and implementation process, to ensure that any decisions didn’t inadvertently create such a "two-tier" system as a result of an unintended derivative design effect. Furthermore, if it became clear such an effect was unavoidable and there was no better alternative, then it would be important to handle it in such a way as to manage audience expectations appropriately, so that it did not negatively impact their overall perception of the product. For example, it could well be that the best option for tackling this risk would be to plan for the two audiences to be separate from the start, perhaps going so far as to only make the Play-To-Earn version available on a platform the existing Free-To-Play game does not already support.
The claim suggests that the token's utility as a catalyst for turning Grind Currency into Premium Currency would create additional economic value spontaneously. While this is theoretically possible, it's not guaranteed, and it depends on various factors such as the demand for Premium Currency, the availability of Grind Currency, and the overall balance of the game's economy. Additionally, the claim does not take into account the potential negative consequences of introducing a new currency or token, such as inflation, market saturation, or even fraud. Again, these are very real risks and it would be disingenuous to try and argue they either did not exist or could simply be disregarded out of hand, which is what some teams choose to do when trying to justify their business strategies in emerging markets, such as cryptogaming. My own belief is that a more useful approach would be for teams to openly acknowledge that such risks are an inevitable part of a project such as this, and to keep them under consideration at all times during the design and development process. By using them as a “reality check” filter to run all significant design choices through, their impact on issues that are known to be problematic and potentially critical to the ultimate success or failure of the venture could be monitored and flagged early should corrective action be needed.
The claim assumes that the existing Free-To-Play game economy is already optimal and does not need improvement; however, this is unlikely to be true, and introducing a Game Specific Token could provide an opportunity to enhance the overall value proposition for players and stakeholders by addressing existing pain points or limitations in the Free-To-Play economy. For example, the Game Specific Token could be used to incentivise certain player behaviours in new ways, or reward players for completing specific challenges and achievements that contribute positively to the game's overall ecosystem. Given this, it's probably reasonable to assume that even if the Free-To-Play economy wasn't as optimal as it could be, that it would already have been optimised to the level its current development team was capable of achieving. That would suggest any additional optimisation of the existing economy would best be led by a new team with fresh eyes and ideas for how to achieve this, as well as a deeper understanding of the unique requirements of a Play-To-Earn economy that most game developers may not yet be familiar with.
The claim suggests that the token's utility as a catalyst for turning Grind Currency into Premium Currency would be sufficient to generate additional economic value; however, it's important to consider how the token's value proposition compares to other options for acquiring Premium Currency, such as direct purchase or incentivised advertisements. If the token's value proposition is, or becomes, weaker or less desirable than other options, it may not generate enough demand or uptake to justify the investment required, and may ultimately create a maximum price cap for the Game Specific Token itself.
The claim assumes that the introduction of a Game Specific Token would not have any unintended consequences for the game's ecosystem or community; however, it's impossible to be 100% sure that the token would not create new opportunities for exploitation, cheating, or some other type of toxicity. Even a modest increase in these could undermine the overall player experience and value proposition. Additionally, the introduction of a new currency or token could create confusion or complexity for players who are accustomed to the existing economy, which could lead to frustration or disengagement. These are all important considerations that would need to be born in mind and constantly monitored throughout its development and launch, as well as with any future updates or maintenance patches.
With all these risks (and more!) in mind then, what might the practical upshots be for Play-To-Earn players?
Experienced players who have already amassed a lot of stored Gold (Grind Currency) from the Free-To-Play game would immediately begin doing an economic calculation to determine the cost of converting their Gold into Platinum (Premium Currency). As mentioned in point 5 above, that calculation would centre around whether the purchasing of Platinum directly from the Game Store was cheaper and/or more convenient for them than converting their Gold through use of a Game Specific Token. In a situation where it was more expensive or less convenient then it would be reasonable to assume players would choose to convert their Gold to Platinum; however, as soon as it becomes less expensive or more convenient then it would follow that players would simply continue to purchase Premium Currency from the Game Store and disregard the Game Specific Token.
This implies that requiring a Game Specific Token as a Catalyst may only work while the value of the token remains low, and that as the value of the token increases players would choose to purchase Premium Currency directly rather than earn it through a Grind Currency. It is possible that introducing a Game Specific Token as a catalyst for currency conversion while leaving in the option to purchase Premium Currency directly could limit the value of the token; however, like most design decisions in game development, the decision to solve the issue pre-emptively by removing the option to purchase Premium Currency directly from the start, or whether to leave it in until the token value starts to rival the cost of purchasing Premium Currency directly is not one with a “correct” answer. The answer is complex, nuanced, and dependent upon many other factors; some of which may not be known until development has begun in earnest.
What about the claim suggesting it satisfies the Experience Design requirement then?
Claim #2: it satisfies the Experience Design requirement since it only adds functionality and doesn't require any existing game items or features to be reduced or removed. In particular it prevents players who are already deeply invested in the Free-To-Play version from potentially destabilising the Play-To-Earn version by instantly converting their hoards of Grind Currency to Premium Currency. Most importantly, it achieves this without removing their access to a resource they already accumulated fairly through the existing rules of the game.
How might we view this claim more sceptically, so as to identify potential design risks more clearly?
The claim suggests that introducing the Play-To-Earn version of the game would only add functionality and not require any existing game items or features to be reduced or removed; however, introducing a new game mode or feature can always have derivative effects for the existing game economy, balance, and player experience that would be extremely difficult to predict in advance without reference to a specific instance of a specific game. For example, the introduction of a Play-To-Earn mode could incentivize players to engage in particular behaviours or strategies that are sufficiently different from the existing Free-To-Play mode to skew the play dynamic in ways that create imbalances and disrupt the overall value proposition for players.
The claim asserts that the Play-To-Earn version prevents players who are already deeply invested in the Free-To-Play version from destabilizing the Play-To-Earn version by instantly converting their hoards of Grind Currency to Premium Currency; however, this would not be a given, but rather a factor of how the token issuance and redemption is implemented in practice, as it would require monitoring the accumulation and conversion of Grind Currency across both versions of the game. For this reason, it would be prudent to implement some sort of analytics/metrics system that identifies the most important performance indicators for the Play-To-Earn version of the game and monitor these against the Free-To-Play version.
The claim suggests that the Play-To-Earn version would not remove players' access to a resource they already accumulated fairly through the existing rules of the game; however, introducing a new game mode or feature always risks derivative effects that change the rules of the game and create unexpected player behaviours, especially over the longer term since that multiplies effects that can appear inconsequential in the short term. If the Play-To-Earn version provides significant advantages or benefits that are not available through the existing Free-To-Play mode, it would be another potential route towards some players feeling excluded, disadvantaged, or otherwise unfairly treated, and so this would need to be considered throughout development and monitored closely after launch.
The claim assumes that the introduction of the Play-To-Earn version would satisfy the Experience Design requirement without considering other aspects of the wider player experience, such as emotional and social benefits. While the Play-To-Earn mode may provide functional benefits, such as additional ways to earn Premium Currency, it may not necessarily enhance the emotional or social aspects of the game experience, such as social interaction, immersion, or storytelling. These can often be disproportionately important for players, and so this would need to be assessed carefully. Additionally, the claim does not consider other potential trade-offs or conflicts between different aspects of the player experience, such as competition versus cooperation, challenge versus accessibility, or self-expression versus conformity.
In summary then, the claim that introducing the Play-To-Earn version of the game satisfies the Experience Design requirement could be considered overly simplistic, as it overlooks or trivialises potential implications and risks associated with this change. The trouble is, there is simply not enough information available to assess whether the claim is accurate or not without reference to a specific game and, moreover, even then some of the information would not become available until the process of development was already well underway. In fact, some information may not become available until actual player data is available after launch.
I usually think of this aspect of game development as being analogous to doing building renovations – it’s possible for skilled contractors to estimate the risks and work involved in a given project, but it’s really only once the floorboards are pulled up and the foundations exposed that the true scale of the task and the best solution for it can be properly assessed.
An experienced house builder once told me that all the risk is “below the ground” for them, because regardless of any detailed plans and schedules that have been prepared beforehand, they’ve no idea what they’re actually going to be dealing with until the work’s started and the soil’s broken. I certainly recognise that scenario and empathise with the perspective as a game designer. Again, this reminds me why the choice of team matters so much when undertaking such projects, because most decisions need to be taken with partial information and then adapted in realtime as better information becomes available. All without jeopardising the overall aim of the project.
When considered together all the points above provide some indication to the scale of unknowns that would surround any project that aimed to take an existing Free-To-Play game and turn it into a successful Play-To-Earn game. As shown, the number of unknowns are considerable, but that would still be far fewer than would likely be encountered by a games team that attempted to build an original Play-To-Earn game themselves from scratch.
This observation brings me back to what I consider to be the most important takeaway from all of my research into the Play-To-Earn market so far. That is, adapting an existing product is always going to be a less risky strategy than building an entirely new one. Precisely because it would provide more of the additional information to the development team much sooner and this would let them react faster to potential problems.
As has been shown above, it's possible to drill into any design solution from an increasingly sceptical perspective and introduce doubt and uncertainty to the robustness of them. In game design and development that's entirely normal though, and something any professional game designer has to be very comfortable with, particularly when trying to create an entirely new type of experience that hasn't been created before, where a 'standard template' can’t be consulted.
For example, in my role as “Sector CEO-in-Residence” with the UK Games Fund I often come into contact with game design students and developers right at the start of their careers. Whenever the topic of my design work on the Grand Theft Auto series comes up, they are often surprised when I explain that there was initially a lot of scepticism around my attempts to add radio stations into Grand Theft Auto's open world game design. From a young developer’s perspective, Grand Theft Auto has always been a hugely successful and influential game. Its radio stations have been a design pillar for every generation of the game up to the present day, and so the "formula", or "blueprint" for the game is now firmly established, and no one would dare mess with it for fear of breaking such a successful formula. Like all successful creative projects though, from the end looking back, it seems like it could never have been any other way: yes, of course you should play the criminal rather than the cop; yes, of course you should be able to take any vehicle you want and go anywhere in the city by any route you choose; yes, of course, you should be listening to whatever radio station (or if I was designing it again today, podcast) the previous owner had been enjoying before you relieved them of their ride. It's all totally obvious in retrospect.
And yet, what those students and young developers usually don't appreciate is how completely non-obvious all of those design choices were to its original designers who didn't have the luxury of being able to look backwards at them to know whether they would work or not. Instead, they found themselves with the challenge of looking forwards and imagining whether they would deliver a compelling experience for players, which is a very different type of challenge altogether. As a result, everything was questioned extensively, debated heatedly, and only implemented if it had stood up to a harsh creative kicking from its peers. That process was an important part of that game’s development.
All professional game designers assume this is going to happen to our designs, and certainly don't ever expect anyone to simply take it on faith that our designs would be optimal, or even functional. Nor would we want them to. That's because we know that any design choices we make will eventually be stress-tested to the MAX by players, and that's why the best game designers hone their ability to kick their own ideas to pieces, long before the game is put at risk by letting players do it for them.
Any game designers that don't live by that approach risk their designs dying in the hands of players who will stop at nothing to give themselves an edge, even when there’s no more than “bragging rights” at stake. Everything I see about the Play-To-Earn and cryptogaming space so far tells me that adding monetary value to the basic gaming recipe in the form of tradeable tokens is going to make the derivative effects of game design much more important to consider.
As such, I think it will be critical for the teams creating them to keep this in mind at all times and plan accordingly. Or else risk dealing with the consequences of letting players do it for them after launch, which (from experience!) is something I really wouldn’t recommend.
All of which reinforces my initial intuition that derivative effects will be paramount to understand for designers of the next wave of Play-To-Earn experiences.