作者 |老白编译| Wu区块链原文链接：https://x.com/i/status/2016829704960135579A 前段时间，我发推文说我儿子在Roblox中疯狂充值Robux，偷走了其他玩家的物品。我感叹这款游戏远比原神的扭蛋、泡泡玛特的盲盒厉害，才是真正的“变现之神”。这引起了很多粉丝的共鸣，这篇帖子也成为了我最近关注度最高的推文之一。第二天，我突然想到：为什么像《Roblox》这样注重变现的游戏，似乎缺少“打金工作室”？或者，即使它们存在，为什么它们对游戏的生命周期几乎没有影响？巧合的是，@j0hnwang 最近挖出了一篇他写的关于 Roblox 的旧文章，讨论了这个问题。我之前已经加过书签，所以我又回去读了一遍。约翰的观点是，Roblox 将经济系统视为游戏的一部分，而加密游戏则将游戏视为经济系统的门面。他认为中心化的经济机制有助于构建更加可控的游戏体验。这是有道理的。 “Web3 游戏不够好玩”是一种普遍的批评。然而，Web3 游戏的这一周期已经发生了重大变化。
可玩性的提高，其经济机制也高度中心化和监管。然而，结果仍然完全相同。肯定还有其他原因。然后我想到了魔兽世界和快斗。前段时间X封禁Kaito API的那天，我说过这样的话：“行为一旦规模化，就必然产业化。从Web2魔兽时代的‘中国农民’，到Web3 X2Earn和打金工作室的脚本，再到现在不可避免的‘AI大众账号创建和矩阵式参与农业’。所以，‘参与农业’不是被精明的散户或KOL毁掉的，而是被‘可复制’的属性毁掉的。”这不仅仅是 Kaito 的问题；这基本上是所有激励系统的最终命运。”
Author | Lao Bai
Compiled by | WuBlockchain
Original Link:
https://x.com/i/status/2016829704960135579
A while ago, I tweeted about my son crazily topping up Robux in Roblox to steal other players’ items. I lamented that this game is far more formidable than Genshin Impact’s gacha or Pop Mart’s blind boxes — it is the true “God of Monetization.” This resonated with many followers, and that post became one of my most engaged tweets recently.
The next day, a thought suddenly struck me: Why does a game as heavy on monetization as Roblox seem to lack “Gold Farming Studios”? Or, even if they exist, why do they have almost no impact on the game’s lifecycle? Coincidentally, @j0hnwang recently dug up an old article he wrote about Roblox discussing this very issue. I had bookmarked it before, so I went back and read it again.
John’s point is that Roblox views the economic system as part of the game, whereas crypto games treat the game as a facade for the economic system. He believes that centralized economic mechanisms help build a more controllable gaming experience.
This makes sense. “Web3 games aren’t fun enough” has been a common criticism. However, this cycle of Web3 games has seen significant improvements in playability, and their economic mechanisms are also highly centralized and regulated. Yet, the outcome remains exactly the same. There must be other reasons.
Then I thought about World of Warcraft (WoW) and Kaito. On the day X banned the Kaito API a while back, I said the following:
“Once behavior is scalable, it will inevitably be industrialized.
From the ‘Chinese Farmers’ of the Web2 WoW era to the scripts of Web3 X2Earn and gold farming studios, and now to the inevitable ‘AI mass account creation and matrix-style engagement farming.’
So, ‘engagement farming’ wasn’t ruined by smart retail investors or KOLs; it was ruined by the attribute of ‘replicability.’ This isn’t just a problem for Kaito; it is basically the ultimate fate of all incentive systems.”
So, what exactly is the secret of World of Warcraft and Roblox? Why couldn’t studios kill them? Why, after the first appearance of “Chinese Farmers” on US servers caused gold inflation and player complaints in WoW, did players gradually accept it, and why did it become a fixed ecosystem within the game?
There must be something that Web3 games lack, something far more complex than just centralized economic mechanisms.
First, Let’s Talk About World of Warcraft
1. Gold is Not the “Endgame Value”
Veteran WoW players should know this well: in the game, gold is basically uncoupled from your status and standing. Your achievements, rankings, reputation, and the like cannot be directly purchased with gold. When a piece of top-tier gear drops in a dungeon, you either “Roll” for it or use DKP (contribution points) to bid. Once picked up, the item is directly “Soulbound” to the player and cannot be taken out to sell for money.
Therefore, gold can at most save you some time, but it cannot catapult you into becoming a core player. At the time, many domestic browser games did the complete opposite: “RMB whales” could destroy everything in their path just by spending money. This style is actually quite similar to current Web3 games.
In essence, within World of Warcraft, all “meaningful things” — top-tier gear, achievements, titles, dungeon contribution, etc. — cannot be directly bought with gold. So, although the act of gold farming could be scaled, leading to the industrialization of the first wave of “Chinese Farmers,” it never managed to dominate the game’s core experience. In other words, this “industrialization” was confined to the “peripheral layer” of the game.
2. The Official Stance: “Absorption, Not Confrontation”
Blizzard took a series of actions after gold farming studios appeared, which, in hindsight, were very smart.
First, official control: They allowed players to buy gold with real money (via WoW Tokens), but the price is regulated by the system, and there is no free financial off-ramp. This effectively turned the underground black market into an official currency exchange.
Second, adding various barriers: They introduced daily quests, weekly quests, and various cooldown (CD) locks. No matter how many accounts you have or how high your level is, you have to honestly wait out the time. This diluted the advantages of industrialization.
Third, introducing more “meaningful things” that gold cannot buy: As mentioned above — guilds, raids, social reputation, etc. While this later led to the emergence of “Gold Runs” and GDKP, all dungeon “World Firsts” were always achieved by top-tier guilds, never by Gold Runs. Thus, gold farming in World of Warcraft remained a “second-class citizen” forever.
As for Roblox, the Logic is Slightly Different
1. Encouraging Creativity Over Repetitive Labor
If you look at the article I cited in my previous post about Roblox, you’ll see that the most profitable activities in Roblox are not repetitive tasks like resource farming; there isn’t much profit in those.
What truly makes money is creating maps, designing gameplay mechanics, and managing communities.
These activities are very difficult for studios to replicate at scale. No matter how many resources you farm, you cannot “farm” a gameplay experience that is popular with children. (Although, with the advent of AI, one wonders if “mass-produced design” might become possible.)
2. An Internally Closed-Loop Economic System with Restricted Asset Exchange
This aligns somewhat with John’s line of thinking. Buying Robux with a credit card is instant, but converting Robux back into cash is far less smooth. There are thresholds, delays, and exchange rate losses, so arbitrage strategies (like “brick-moving”) don’t work well here.
Furthermore, most of the money in Roblox flows toward platform commissions, the top creators mentioned earlier, and in-game consumption. It is a closed-loop economic system with very little spillover.
Of course, whether it’s World of Warcraft or Roblox, being “fun to play” plus having “a large player base” is the most crucial foundation underpinning them both. This is beyond doubt.
Conversely, What is the Real Reason for the Collective Demise of Web3 Games?
Reflecting on this — setting aside the “fun factor” for a moment — perhaps the original design intent of blockchain games doomed them to this outcome from the very start.
Almost all blockchain games allow for “Repeatable Actions” + “Freely Exitable Assets.”
In an era where Web2 gaming systems are already mature, this inevitably turns the ultimate player base of blockchain games into “Capital + Scripts,” rather than human beings.
In other words, as long as “Play” is linked to “Earn,” this outcome is inevitable.
Whether it is “Play-to-Earn,” the later improved “Move-to-Earn,” or even “Play & Earn,” it is all old wine in new bottles — there is no essential difference.
This is somewhat like an “Impossible Trinity” of gaming: between “Being Fun,” “Speculators Making Money,” and “Studios Being Able to Scale,” you can at most achieve two.
From this perspective, the issue with Web3 Games isn’t about team quality or funding scale; rather, it is that from their most fundamental genetic level, it is impossible for them to be “fun.”
Is Putting World of Warcraft On-Chain Feasible? Is It Meaningful?
I remember back when blockchain games were booming, we often indulged in a specific fantasy: What would happen if World of Warcraft went on-chain?
We didn’t mean putting the game logic on-chain, but rather its economic system — gold, items, mounts, everything. We imagined making these things freely tradable, freely exitable, and fully financialized.
Thinking about it now, we were incredibly naive. If that were done, WoW would inevitably be destroyed by the system.
The Underlying Axioms of World of Warcraft’s Success
1. Meaning Cannot Be Traded The most valuable things — top-tier gear, achievements, titles — are almost all “Soulbound.” They are untradable and untransferable. These items represent what you have done, not what you own.
2. Progress Does Not Equal Wealth Your time investment, operational skills, and teamwork are the foundations of your standing. Gold can at most make you comfortable, but it cannot help you jump social classes within the game.
3. Players are Role-Players, Not Asset Owners “I looted this gear myself/redeemed it with DKP,” “Our guild achieved the World First kill on this Boss,” “This character represents 10 years of my blood and sweat…” Once this narrative shifts to “I bought this,” or “I invested in this,” the character to which you are emotionally bound degrades into merely a skin for an asset account.
If we must put something on-chain, the things in World of Warcraft truly worth putting on the blockchain are actually these: proofs of a Boss First Kill, guild history, timestamps of your achievements, witness records of world events… What goes on-chain shouldn’t be assets and value, but memories and traces.
The reason World of Warcraft is great lies precisely in the fact that its most important things can never be sold.
From this perspective, “Blockchain Games Must Die.”
It isn’t just about blockchain games. We once treated blockchain as a hammer, seeing everything as a nail to be struck. Little did we know that there are too many things in this world that simply do not need to be “financialized.” Their purpose of existence is to be experienced, remembered, and retold.
Follow us
Twitter: https://twitter.com/WuBlockchain
Telegram: https://t.me/wublockchainenglish