READYgg as the "Kusama of gameFi"
Testnets provide a safe environment for the testing of Web3 features, without the hurdle of creating core technology required to conduct the test. This liberates teams to experiment with different blockchain methods, refine those methods with real-world data, and then deploy at scale, with more confidence.
A good existing example of this in action is Kusama, which defines itself as "an experimental development environment for teams who want to move fast and innovate on Kusama, or prepare for deployment on Polkadot." One of the largest blockers in gameFi for mainstream adoption are the hurdles studios must overcome to go live with a Web3 game, which makes testing and learning cost prohibive as described in the pervious section.
Web2 game studios entering gameFi face meaningful uncertainty pertaining to testing, deploying, refining, and scaling Web3 economics. The present state of gameFi requires Web2 companies to adpot material risk at the outset, in terms of complexity, capital requirements, and reputational hits related to Web3 initatives that mis-align with existing Web2 player community sentiment. Potential risks include:
Over estimating the need for a purpose-built utility token associated to the game. In the absence of a testbed for web3 economic loops, the true necessity for a game token rests on conjecture, rather than disciplined real-world gaming data from players.
Underestimating the complexity of issuing a utility token, in compliance with global regulations. Poorly executed token issuances create material downside risk for the parent company, in terms of potential shareholder litigation, money laundering and KYC regulations that can shift with minimal notice, and a chronic shortage of "seller side" law firms able to confidently guide the newbie issuer through the token generation process.
A general "investor fatigue" at the cookie-cutter oversupply of vertically integrated, single-purpose gameFi utility tokens. Ultimate, these devolve into a simple equation for the seasoned investor: "Are we in the hit-driven game business?" Meaning the success or failure of token economy associated to the game is largely to correlated to non-crytpographic risks, notably- "Is this game super fun and going to be a mega hit?" Few, if any, investors like those risks.
Player cynicism that - to date- Web3 "play to earn" mechanics appear to be devoid of fun, and exist as financial "schemes" masquerading as games.
Underestimating the technical integration required for live operations on-chain by the game studio. Most game studios are not staffed with "core tech" engineers, let alone seasoned blockchain engineers. The capital expenditure to recruit a core tech crypto team, diligence the right partner set (layer1, layer2 solutions, smart contract methods, and more), and then crisply execute the concordant engineering strategy without errors, technical debt accumulation, and security risks- all prior to even validating the cost/benefit of web3 gaming in the conext of the studio's existing web2 games portfolio- presents a material go-to-market risk.
For the reasons above, Web2 gaming companies have largely taken an appropriately skeptical "wait and see" approach to Web3 gaming. Until "best practices" are fully developed, and player sentiment becomes more aligned with the "fun" and "play" possible in a Web3 gaming context, the "first mover" risks are material.
At the same time, with some adoption of risk comes the potential for reward. Thus some Web2 gaming studios are open to entering a Web3 gaming ecosystem- but would prefer to test, iterate, learn, and refine their strategy first.
For Web2 gaming studios, READYgg offers an effcient lower-risk path to testing and learning. Studios can use READYgg's live operations infrastructure and $RDYX tokenomics as a method to quickly standup a Web3 gaming test, generate real-world data, and reach a de-risked, qualified opinion on how best to integrate Web3 gaming into a studio's gaming portfolio, by answering these questions:
Should studios adapt existing Web2 games to Web3 mechanics?
Should studios release new "purpose built" Web3 titles from scratch?
Should studios create their own live operations stack to manage Web3 gaming, if so with what features?
Should studios issue their own utility and governance token to support their games? If so, how would their tokenomics work? What evidence can be shown to investors and players that these tokenomics effectively align all stakeholder interests for the long term?
How can studios evangelize the Web3 opportunity and build goodwill with their existing Web2 player communities.
Working inside the READYgg ecosystem as a testnet enables Web2 studios to answer these questions (and more) with direct, hands-on data, generated in a safe, scalable, and accessible environment.
Post learning, the studio may conclude that using READYgg's live operations infrastructure, an the shared tokenomics of $RDYX are powerful de-risking factors, with material operating and financial upside. Or they may conclude that they have a robust empirical rationale to build their own game-affiliated ecosystem.
Whichever the path the studio may opt to pursue - within the READYgg ecosystem or in their own (or another) ecosystem- Ready serves as their initial native guide towards reaching an informed decision.