cards: Ulti Arena reviews: Proof of gaming - an NFT solution that rewards players while playing non-blockchain games

UX Researcher and Designer

What do you think about the proof of gaming concept?

I remember hearing it for the first time in 2020, at that time when everyone was talking about ATRI and ATARIChain. I also remember being invaded by the FOMO of the moment and buying a little bit (I still have it and it is the same value as when I bought it more than 1 year ago), confident of the long-term project. Today the concept continues to sound relevant, even more so with a growing offer of play-to-earn video games of all kinds in different ecosystems. Being able to enjoy traditional games with all the benefits and dynamics that blockchain and crypto brings is a good bet for whoever does it, so whatever the final result of UltiArena, it is a good bet.

Do you think Ulti Arena’s solution could endanger existing NFT gaming projects? Why?

Not at all. On the contrary, I believe that different solutions will coexist to solve the new gamification mechanics that will need to be used so that the off-chain-world integrates homogeneously with the blockchain-world. I am not clear about the technology behind this function, but I can imagine that in the case of a game like Dota 2 that is MOBA type and that allows infinite strategies based on the members of their respective teams, each user could well accumulate different types of assets that arise in a game and that have an intrinsic value within the video game and monetary value in the blockchain.

What is your take on the crypto gaming industry future?

Before 2020 the video game industry had been surpassing the film and porn industry together. It was announcing the arrival of the new generations of consoles and the new generations of dedicated graphics cards. The business flourished in all corners of the world, generating new academic careers focused on video game development around the globe. I think the future will be even brighter, with so much institutional money in crypto than ever before and the flourishing of new blockchain solutions that improve with each passing day, the future cannot be different from a resounding success. I'm really bullish on the crypto gaming industry.

Educator, minister, council.

What do you think about the proof of gaming concept?

I have a rather robust set of skills, combined with the experience and ultimately wisdom, that comes with online gaming, hardware, and various blockchain technology. Proof of gaming concepts certainly have been around for a few years. Many of these games seem to be thriving at the moment. But I would highly encourage caution with this technology, for many reasons. Not just for security, but psychologically. My research into this topic more thoroughly has revealed a lot of potential for abuse that most people just seemed to have glossed over, or outright ignored. First, I would like to talk about the psychological aspects. Anything that brings you joy, a sense of accomplishment, and other subconscious reward triggering mechanisms can become an addiction. Feeding into the addiction of a player, to keep the network running, right out of the gate seems rather horrifying to me, personally. A great comparison at the moment is what we have witnessed with Facebook, having the whistleblower coming forward and testifying about their experimentation on users, and using the business model of drumming up as much anger or outrage as possible just to keep users engaged on their platform for longer periods of time than they typically would. Phrases such as “Putting the companies’ profits above the user’s health.” Come to mind. Of course, this could be resolved with some technical integration from psychologists. (But really have you talked to or heard from a psychologist about crypto in recent times?) I personally doubt CEOs are going to even listen, when their very business model is put into jeopardy. They can be fired for NOT maximizing their profits to shareholders. It technically goes against their very job status. That’s not to say every single game maker sets out to create an evil empire, or even that it should be discounted completely, for there are some games that this would indeed be beneficial too. However, I have seen little information regarding how these “proof of gaming” games, would take into account issues such as latency in a first-person shooter platform (CS: is listed as an upcoming early adopter of this technology), and there are many others for that matter. This makes for a precarious situation that people could simply “game” the game to make wins. Most people are familiar with “aim bots”. It wouldn’t take much effort to sway the servers to your favor. This ties into my first topic, addiction. If your network depends on the users staying in game to keep mining the very system running, well you just created an addict. In addition to this, there are literal prison “miners” in some countries that are given the task to mine for gold in games such as WOW. This gives incentives to bad actors. As you can see it clearly could turn good actors into bad ones, making choices for the clients that really aren’t in their best interests. However, so long as these issues are addressed, it is possible there is some light at the end of the tunnel. There are some games being ran at the moment that reward users with NFT assets just for completing collections. Dapper labs have many already up and running, ranging from the NBA to the NFL, and other companies have taken to make fantasy football NFT friendly, rewarding users with player cards and more. These can fall into the “arts” category even though they are technically games. They will mature and gain value as these NFTs are burned, lost, and so forth. What do you think about the proof of gaming concept? I have a rather robust set of skills, combined with wisdom, and experience both with online gaming, hardware, and various blockchain technology. Proof of gaming concepts certainly have been around for a few years. Many of these games seem to be thriving at the moment. But I would highly encourage caution with this technology, for many reasons. Not just for security, but psychologically. My research into this topic more thoroughly has revealed a lot of potential for abuse that most people just seemed to have glossed over, or outright ignored. First, I would like to talk about the psychological aspects. Anything that brings you joy, a sense of accomplishment, and other subconscious reward triggering mechanisms can become an addiction. Feeding into the addiction of a player, to keep the network running, right out of the gate seems rather horrifying to me, personally. A great comparison at the moment is what we have witnessed with Facebook, having the whistleblower coming forward and testifying about their experimentation on users, and using the business model of drumming up as much anger or outrage as possible just to keep users engaged on their platform for longer periods of time than they typically would. Phrases such as “Putting the companies’ profits above the user’s health.” Come to mind. Of course, this could be resolved with some technical integration from psychologists. (But really have you talked to or heard from a psychologist about crypto in recent times?) I personally doubt CEOs are going to even listen, when their very business model is put into jeopardy. They can be fired for NOT maximizing profits to shareholders. It technically goes against their very job title. That’s not to say every single game maker sets out to create an evil empire, or even that it should be discounted completely, for there are some games that this would indeed be beneficial too. Still, I have seen little information regarding how these “proof of gaming” games, would take into account issues such as latency in a first-person shooter platform (CS: is listed as an upcoming early adopter of this technology), and there are many others for that matter. This makes for a precarious situation that people could simply “game” the game to make wins. Most people are familiar with “aim bots”. It wouldn’t take much effort to sway the servers to your favor. This ties into my first topic, addiction. If your network depends on the users staying in game to keep “mining”, well not only have you just created an addict. But you are exploiting the physical computer systems running said games. You are outsourcing resources that your servers would normally handle directly to the consumer. A great example is the monetary costs of electricity, the very hardware needed to keep the network running. Offsetting your costs of operation right to the game players themselves, and incentivizing them to “stay longer” so they can “earn rewards” generally makes it so the user is paying, and then paying again for the potential reward of an NFT, gas fees, etc. In addition to this, I want to point out that right now there are still physical prisons in some countries that coerce inmates into playing games, where they are given the task of being “gold miners”. I recall reading news stories of these prisons using games such as World of Warcraft as an example of how in return for not having to do hard labor, they are sat down for hours to days on end to mine and resell the game gold for real physical currency. This again gives incentives to bad actors. As you can see it clearly could turn good actors into bad ones without them even realizing what they have done until it’s too late. Making choices for the clients that really aren’t in their best interests never ends well for either party. So long as these issues are addressed, I believe there is some light at the end of the tunnel. There are some games being ran at the moment that reward users with NFT assets just for completing collections. Dapper labs have many games already up and running, ranging from the NBA to the NFL, and other companies have taken to make fantasy football NFT friendly, rewarding users with player cards and more. Though these technically can fall into the “arts” category they are still technically games. They will mature and gain value as these NFTs are burned, lost, and so forth. It will be interesting to see where this ends up. Regulations are still being debated, not even created yet, so it’s anyone’s guess. If I were a betting person, I would say they will find a niche. Again, we have to take into account the human factor, exploitation, and ease of which it can be done. People could be swindled, or get so enveloped by the games that they end up building a fake life that will have long lasting negative health consequences for them should they fall prey to bad actors. As with any new technology there is going to be pitfalls. We will all live and learn as it progresses.

Do you think Ulti Arena’s solution could endanger existing NFT gaming projects? Why?

I do think that Ulti Arena’s solution could pose problems for some NFT gaming projects. Everyone at the moment is scrambling to “be the first.”, and not necessarily “the best”. Healthy competition is great for any community that wants improvements. They most certainly have disrupted the gaming environment online. “Game changing” is the perfect description. (Pardon the pun.) I want to again emphasize that latency, hardware variations, and other factors will give some players better results. This could lead up to exploitation through latency, or even bugs in the code of the programming itself. In the old days of UT99, I recall watching how players could simply disconnect the ethernet cord for a moment, come up and capture a point, plug back in and the system would favor their movements as the legitimate path, over all other players. It’s ripe for exploitation if there isn’t serious thought put into tackling these monumental challenges. What happens if you’re playing a game of CS and the internet drops, while you’re competing for an NFT that’s highly valued? Players are going to feel even more pressure knowing that their actions are being tokenized down to a science. They could find that “If I do XYZ I can game the system to my advantage.” There are just so many unknown knowns at the moment to be certain. Many games will be perfectly fine, for they aren’t designed the same way. They might not use such a comprehensive and robust setup. Ultimately, I must say it will come down to preference of the developers, gamers, and the technology. Not every shoe fits the same foot.

What is your take on the crypto gaming industry future?

While I may not have a crystal ball to look into the future, I can say that as we have seen throughout history there are going to be ups and downs. Time progresses and we find better ways to do things. Some systems become so massive they integrate right into our daily lives, or seem to be indispensable. Whether we like it or not these systems most certainly will be here in one form or another. As I had stated previously, they are still trying to debate crypto. Until the regulators come to an agreement its’ still the wild west. I suspect though, that just as AI has grown exponentially more progressive so will crypto gaming. We’re still taking our first steps as babies, so far as this technology goes. In even 4 years from now it is highly probable that we’ll look back and find that we were using dial up modems when we had broadband in our backpacks. I never underestimate the power of innovation and invention. When a solution needs attention there will always be someone ready to step up and take a swing at the challenges. My biggest concern, is again how will this all impact the users psychologically? Big tech already has more data than they know what to do with, how long before these same problems start to bleed over into other projects? One person leaks the source code and public keys like what just happened with Twitch, and we have a bigger problem. People truly are going to need to take security of their minds more seriously.

This is not a financial advice. Please do your own research and consider the risks of trading cryptocurrencies.