A truly fun part about being a Game Economist is that 3-4 times a year, you’ll get the odd Linkedin message from students wanting to do the same.
I did get back to him!
It’s incredibly gratifying to help set people on the right track, given I was asking for the same help years ago. There’s so little on game economics it forces aspiring Economists to cold-call people with the title on Linkedin. This blog’s mission is to grow the conversation and those participating in it.
Along these lines, a student interviewed a fellow Game Economist for their master’s thesis. They shared the questions with me, and they were a lot of fun, so I’m reposting them here with permission.
Netflix is seriously ramping its games division. As of February 2022, I scrapped ~25 game or game-related titles on Linkedin. Excluding Night School (+15) or Next Game (+125), Netflix Games probably approaches an internal headcount of ~50-60. With both studios, ~150-200 Netflix Game or Games related employees. At 14 titles, we’ve seen of things like Dungeon Dwarves and Krispee Street, highlighting small indie-based narrative adventures rather than big-budget AAA affairs. On the contrary, I’ve yet to see a pundit to suggest Netflix get involved in the recent game M&A spree. However, in an industry turning hard right on live service, Netflix is justified in turning left.
In 1989, political scientist Francis Fukuyama wrote an essay asking if we’ve reached The End of History? Often mischaracterized, the essay argues democracy and free markets represent the last evolution of political-economic systems. Fukuyama writes:
What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War or the passing of a particular period of post-war history; that is the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.
Blockchain may well represent game monetization’s End of History.
Take a stroll through a blockchain game website – they are all lovely; remember that’s their UA funnel! – and a standard set of phrases appear: “ownership,” “true ownership,” “truly owning.”
Is everyone hiring the same marketing brand guy?
But blockchain warps the traditional meaning of ownership into a ship of Theseus problem; each blockchain-based game can define ownership in its context. Suddenly, ownership becomes a design space in itself, making it all that much more crucial to dissect and analyze.
Sorry readers, I caught the blockchain bug. When 30-person firms are getting $4.5B valuations, it’s time to pay attention, regardless of one’s priors. Everyone seems to have a Blockchain hot–take, but I’ve found most to fall short of ruthlessly integrating the implications and design space of the technology. Blockchain players (who are also, by definition, investors) insist, at every turn, that it’s so obvious blockchain gaming is the future. Advocates frequently cite specific benefits – true ownership, play-to-earn, “aligning incentives between players and developers,” and decentralization. A smaller crowd expresses skepticism about what blockchain solves for gamers, and if blockchain has the implications advocates think it does. This mounts a normative and positive element to discussions of blockchain. On cue, Benedict Evans offered a measured assessment of the situation:
It's also that almost everyone thinks there are some profoundly interesting technologies and great ideas buried somewhere underneath the torrents of bullshit, hype, FOMO, speculation, crazy politics and general lunacy. The internet had that too, remember.
subscribe to the blog subscribe to the blog subscribe to the blog subscribe to the blog subscribe to the blog subscribe to the blog subscribe to the blog subscribe to the blog
