By Amir Benkelai
What Are "Play-to-Earn" Video Games?
Play-to-Earn (PTE) video games are a genre of gaming whereby the player can generate revenue whilst playing (Kraken Learn Team). They work by implementing non-fungible tokens (NFTs), cryptocurrency, and decentralized finance, where the player can then “own” in-game assets and trade with others to make real income (Kraken Learn Team). This differs from the traditional in-game currency model, where all in-game trades and purchases are done with in-game currency, holding no real-world value (Kraken Learn Team). They also can involve something called a “scholarship program”, whereby wealthier players can provide their assets for free to poorer players, and in return, claim a portion of the income made (Delic and Delfabbro). This creates a risky scheme that can quickly become exploited, especially because of the attractiveness of such a program to people of low-income groups. A case game where this became controversial is Axie Infinity. This game, developed by Sky Mavis, is a card combat game, where players can purchase NFT characters called “Axies”, which can be played for the in-game currency “Smooth Love Potion” (SLP) (Delic & Delfabbro). NFTs, meanwhile, are purchased using real currency, specifically cryptocurrency, with SLP being tradeable and/or exchangeable for real monetary gains. Hence, this brings up ethical considerations of such games and redefines the act of “gaming” beyond just entertainment, but as a form of “digital labor” (Banerjee, Anutosh, et al). Thus, this short essay will argue for how low-income groups become a target of PTE gaming, but that the extents to which they are impacted need to be resolved to ensure fair and equitable play for all.
The Case of Axie Infinity
The paper “Profiling the Potential Risks and Benefits of Emerging ‘Play to Earn’ Games: a Qualitative Analysis of Players’ Experiences with Axie Infinity” by Amelia J. Delic and Paul H. Delfabbro undertakes an analysis of sentiment towards the game based on a couple of themes, using data gathered from Twitter, Reddit, and other sources where Axie communities where highly active. A major find is how the game was not played for enjoyment, but rather, for purposes of income, since the gameplay loop was described as basic or lacking by many (Delic and Delfabbro). This then brings up the next issue, that most players appeared from the developing world, because of the promise of income greater than minimum wage (Delic and Delfabbro). However, this itself created a problem as they then became susceptible to exploitation due to the scholarship program, and from where the study reports finding that there were greater mental health impacts from engaging in such tasks such as higher stress levels (Delic and Delfabbro, Kuo Siong Tan). Together, this brings up a hefty issue of PTE gaming whereby people of low-income groups become easily sucked into a form of “cheap labor”, and collapsing the line between work and game.
Another study on Axie Infinity, more focused on its economical aspect, addresses this as a form of “playbor”, and further describes this as a difficulty of the shifting labor dynamics (Kuo Siong Tan). Named “Playing for keeps: Digital labor and blockchain precarity in play-to-earn gaming” and written by “Gordon Kuo Siong Tan”, it brings up the ludicrous history of games taking advantage of low-income folks (Kuo Siong Tan). For instance, the popular game World of Warcraft, which does not fall under PTE games, had “…practices of ‘farming’ and ‘grinding’ in ‘virtual sweatshops’ where poorly-compensated workers generate virtual items for online sale” (Kuo Siong Tan).
Gaming Rhetoric
As “gaming” has this darker side to itself, the very meaning of “playing” becomes altered. Clearly, for some, this has left the definition of entertainment and instead become financial. Bringing back the “play” element may be key to gaming communities where such systems are produced. Looking at Ian Bogost’s paper “The Rhetoric of Video Games”, he proposes the idea of “procedural rhetoric” for video games content (Bogost). Using Animal Crossing to define how games persuade audiences, thereby becoming a form of rhetoric in-of themselves, Bogost comes to explain his idea as “…the practice of using processes persuasively…”, where “processes” refers to “…machines capable of producing many outcomes, each conforming to the same overall guidelines…” (Bogost).
In the context of PTE, there is an inherent financial motivation persuading players to keep playing. As has been previously established, a lot of players did not engage for sake of entertainment, but rather because of the possibility of making income (Kuo Siong Tan). And since this income came from laid out processes written into the game, this demonstrates a more harmful version of “procedural rhetoric” (Bogost). One that leads to severe negative mental health outcomes, and takes advantage of low-income groups, especially those within developing countries (Kuo Siong Tan). Hence, there is a definite need for PTE games to resolve this issue of “negative procedural rhetoric” to ensure fair and equitable play for all.
Broader Meanings & Conclusion
Therefore, coming to the end of this short essay, one final topic that needs to be brought up is how this side of PTEs play part in the broader question of Web3, the theoretical next step in the web following Web1 and Web2 (Banerjee, Anutosh, et al). As noted by a report from McKinsey & Company, “Web3 will nonetheless need to overcome continuing challenges, obstacles, and risks for both consumers and institutional participants before it can fully establish itself.” (Banerjee, Anutosh, et al). Hence, there is a definitive need for play-to-earn video games to resolve their ability to exploit and bring harm to low-income groups before fully becoming mainstream, to the extent of “revolutionizing” the gaming industry.
Banerjee, Anutosh, et al. Web3 beyond the Hype. McKinsey & Company, Nov. 2022, metaverse-groups.io/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/web3-beyond-the-hype-vf.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec. 2024.
Bogost, Ian. “The Rhetoric of Video Games.” The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning, edited by Katie Salen, The MIT Press, 2008, pp. 117–40, https://doi.org/10.1162/dmal.9780262693646.117. Accessed 15 Dec. 2024.
Delic, Amelia J., and Paul H. Delfabbro. “Profiling the Potential Risks and Benefits of Emerging ‘Play to Earn’ Games: A Qualitative Analysis of Players’ Experiences with Axie Infinity.” International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, vol. 22, Aug. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-022-00894-y.
Kraken Learn Team. “What Are Play-To-Earn Crypto Games? | Learn How to Earn Crypto While Gaming.” Kraken.com, Kraken, 2023, www.kraken.com/learn/what-play-to-earn-crypto-games. Accessed 15 Dec. 2024.
Kuo Siong Tan, Gordon. “Playing for Keeps: Digital Labor and Blockchain Precarity in Play-To-Earn Gaming.” Geoforum, vol. 151, May 2024, p. 104009, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2024.104009. Accessed 15 Dec. 2024.