Four Roadblocks in Blockchain Gaming

Blockchain gaming is becoming increasingly popular thanks to the top mobile game development company. Both the private and public sectors have responded with enthusiasm and scepticism.

I'd like to share my views and contribute to the solutions I see.

It is a common problem in all Blockchain projects. I don't consider blocking time or the overall speed of the blockchain a problem. I'm interested in issues that will persist even after blockchains speed up.

Problem #1 Multi-accounting

Overview

The rule that one person = one player is implicitly the foundation of most games created by top mobile game development company. This means that someone could be playing at your place. This is something we don't want.

This rule can be verified in meatspace easily. Verifying it by looking at it or asking for an ID is possible. It's more difficult to verify online.

This current mitigation is temporary. You can fix it by using SSO, pseudoKYC, and ban threats. You can borrow the account control email from another player to change the username and password later. This is a great way to "boost" accounts. Let another player use your account to increase your rank and get gold coins.

Multi-accounting can have many consequences. For example, a player who enjoys minor leagues or higher game inflation could cause his team to be destroyed.

Solutions

NFT Access

 

• How do you stop people from creating fake accounts? It shouldn't be cheap, but it will save you from trouble. Axie infinity, a mobile game development companies, sells three Axis at $600. This is enough to discourage multi-accounting.
• Axie's scholarship programs could be considered multi-accounting, which beats NFT access. Instead of spending money on 25 smartphones, you can purchase the Axies that you need and have someone else play for you. Gaming-wise, The one player ==one person rule isn't broken, but fairness is the reward. Players who have more capital can buy more Axies and delegate more scholars. This allows them to make more money.

The evidence of humanity

• A proof-of-humanity KYC is required for the player to be able to play the game. It can be used in many ways, such as to pledge your immortal soul for the Orb or to pass the proof-of–humanity KYC.
• Instead of asking for KYC, ask the player to perform specific actions on-chain. This would suffice as proof. One player == one human rule can be replaced with one player == one address with many action rules. Vote on Aave proposals. Must have an ENS domain.

Problem #2 Key management

Overview

"With great power comes great responsibility." Blockchain technology puts responsibility in its users' hands through its private keys. Only users have access to these keys. These keys are not available to game developers of mobile game development companies.

It is not a gameplay-wise problem in a game with weak on-chains like So rare. They have to buy cards. This is possible thanks to the ramp. Players might not realize that the blockchain is being used. The game is completely managed off-chain.

This is more troublesome for strongly on-chain games, such as Cometh. Players will be annoyed

if they perform more actions than necessary.

Blockchains will allow game developers to create interactive games faster than turn-based or Asynchronous games created by the top 10 mobile game development companies. To be able to perform more actions on the blockchain, players will need to sign more transactions. A former colleague would say, "That's just too many click clicks."

Solutions

Temporary and local keys

• Mirror employs a clever system to prevent users from signing in too often. The key pair is generated and stored by the client. The key pair cannot be used for sensitive tasks.

Problem #3: Hidden information on-chain

Overview

Let's play a game with rock, paper and scissors. You could create a single-play function that can pass paper, scissors, and rock. I play the game. This is done by giving the play function I choose to the contract. It will then compare the moves of the two opponents.

My opponent can see the blockchain, and mine to see my move. But that's not the problem. If I choose to play rock, they will play paper.

This problem is even worse for games that have incomplete information. Battleship, also known as fog of war, was developed by developers from top 10 mobile game development companies. My opponent can query the smart contract to locate my ships on the grid if the blockchain stores the Battleship game's status. This will enable me to defeat him.

Because blockchain is an open, distributed database, it is difficult to conceal information on-chain. It is, therefore, more difficult to play games that require players to hide certain information.

Solutions

Commit-reveal schemes

• The contract may require rock-and-paper scissors players to "lock their choices" by hashing their choice and a number of their choosing. After both players have made their choice, they'll be asked to reveal it and the number. They will be required to sign a contract confirming that they have revealed what they have committed.

Problem #4: Cheat-to-Earn

Overview

Players are paid for playing games. Players of Axie Infinity developed by mobile games development companies are rewarded when they complete quests and receive SLP tokens, which can be traded. Fantasy leagues are a place where Sorare players can earn ETH.

Both games use P2E-resistant cheating mechanics.

• Sorare's rewards can be randomized in a true fantasy-gaming fashion developed by mobile games development companies. This is impossible to beat unless you can predict the future. Multi-accounting could help beat Poker, which still relies on randomness.
• Axie rewards can be time-based. This means cheating is impossible if you perform a Sybil attack using multi-accounting. You can impersonate 25 players to earn 25 times your reward, which sounds similar to an Axie scholarship.

Solutions

Reduce the use of P2E mechanics to offset botting

• The easiest way to prevent someone from cheating on your P2E game developed by game development company is to make it difficult for a bot to play it. It's difficult for AI to beat 3D platform games with items to find or any game involving conversation.
• Other game mechanics that don't unfairly advantage bots or are built around human-bot interaction could exist.

Anti-cheat system decentralized

• Referees could be rewarded for verifying that the game took place and that the winner was honest. A Kleros-based decentralized tribunal could decide the case if there is suspicion of foul play.
• Bounty hunters could be hired to put other players on trial and get paid for their work. This should be paid for the effort that went into making videos.
• A skin-in-the-game mechanism developed by game development company could further enhance this system. Players could be asked to wager while playing or accused of cheating by another player. They will be disqualified if they are caught lying or cheating.