Life Beyond - A 'Socio-Tech Metavese Play and Earn MMO' Has Just Released an In Game Alpha Trailer |

System

Life Beyond - A 'Socio-Tech Metavese Play and Earn MMO' Has Just Released an In Game Alpha Trailer | MMORPG.com

What exactly is a Socio-Tech Metaverse? Life Beyond means to answer that question, despite the obvious insistence that it was the developer of the game, Darewise, that presented us with the reason to ask. Life Beyond is a game built on Web3 and Blockchain, but with the insistence of the developers, it's much more than that, blending what they profess is "the feeling of a game" and "the stakes of reality".

Read the full story here

user298

I've watched the trailer on official YouTube channel. It will be another failure.

Theocritus

No thanks

slowz2secret

this could've bee a good mmo, but ntf is killing these new games x.x

Champie

mmorpgdotcom quite obviously hates its own community and seeks to poison us all with this kind of garbage scam.

Quizzical

It sounds like their goal is to make a completely generic MMORPG and then add NFTs to it.  And if your goal for the game part of the game is to make a generic knock-off, then you're not likely to accidentally make a game that is actually good.

If that's not their goal, then perhaps they should talk more about the game part of the game.  What is it that they hope will make their game interesting to gamers?  NFTs won't.

maskedweasel

Quizzical said:

It sounds like their goal is to make a completely generic MMORPG and then add NFTs to it.  And if your goal for the game part of the game is to make a generic knock-off, then you're not likely to accidentally make a game that is actually good.

If that's not their goal, then perhaps they should talk more about the game part of the game.  What is it that they hope will make their game interesting to gamers?  NFTs won't.

There's a surprising amount of information about the game features on their site. Probably because their token and land sales haven't started yet. Everything does kind of fall back on the monetization though. 

Imo the game looks okay, but the 'tokenomics' worries me. Using real money for even average NPC transactions? That can backfire really quickly, and if the tokens are limited, it likely means they won't be able to give a ton away for free through gameplay. 

If it's play to earn, eventually they'll run out of tokens and they can't issue more, what then? The initial core loop of the game goes bust and you're leaving it up to the players to dictate where the tokens go. And it would also diminish any rewards players get from land sales. 

I dont think some developers think this through, and only look at tokenomics from the bitcoin perspective, where the scarcity of the coin helps inflate the price, but in a real economy, especially one that requires players use the currency for most transactions, not being able to issue more is a really big deal. 

Vrika

maskedweasel said:

Quizzical said:

It sounds like their goal is to make a completely generic MMORPG and then add NFTs to it.  And if your goal for the game part of the game is to make a generic knock-off, then you're not likely to accidentally make a game that is actually good.

If that's not their goal, then perhaps they should talk more about the game part of the game.  What is it that they hope will make their game interesting to gamers?  NFTs won't.

There's a surprising amount of information about the game features on their site. Probably because their token and land sales haven't started yet. Everything does kind of fall back on the monetization though. 

Imo the game looks okay, but the 'tokenomics' worries me. Using real money for even average NPC transactions? That can backfire really quickly, and if the tokens are limited, it likely means they won't be able to give a ton away for free through gameplay. 

If it's play to earn, eventually they'll run out of tokens and they can't issue more, what then? The initial core loop of the game goes bust and you're leaving it up to the players to dictate where the tokens go. And it would also diminish any rewards players get from land sales. 

I dont think some developers think this through, and only look at tokenomics from the bitcoin perspective, where the scarcity of the coin helps inflate the price, but in a real economy, especially one that requires players use the currency for most transactions, not being able to issue more is a really big deal. 

They can always later on add LB2Token that will work just like LBToken and also be limited supply. Then LB3Token, LB4Token, etc.

Mendel

Another day, another article that discusses a possible future game's monetization plans instead of the game play.  Monetization isn't the most important feature of a game for players, only for the developers.

DrunkWolf

i saw the words blockchain and nft and my Bullsh!t/scam meter went so far into the red it almost broke.

maskedweasel

Vrika said:

maskedweasel said:

Quizzical said:

It sounds like their goal is to make a completely generic MMORPG and then add NFTs to it.  And if your goal for the game part of the game is to make a generic knock-off, then you're not likely to accidentally make a game that is actually good.

If that's not their goal, then perhaps they should talk more about the game part of the game.  What is it that they hope will make their game interesting to gamers?  NFTs won't.

There's a surprising amount of information about the game features on their site. Probably because their token and land sales haven't started yet. Everything does kind of fall back on the monetization though. 

Imo the game looks okay, but the 'tokenomics' worries me. Using real money for even average NPC transactions? That can backfire really quickly, and if the tokens are limited, it likely means they won't be able to give a ton away for free through gameplay. 

If it's play to earn, eventually they'll run out of tokens and they can't issue more, what then? The initial core loop of the game goes bust and you're leaving it up to the players to dictate where the tokens go. And it would also diminish any rewards players get from land sales. 

I dont think some developers think this through, and only look at tokenomics from the bitcoin perspective, where the scarcity of the coin helps inflate the price, but in a real economy, especially one that requires players use the currency for most transactions, not being able to issue more is a really big deal. 

They can always later on add LB2Token that will work just like LBToken and also be limited supply. Then LB3Token, LB4Token, etc.

They definitely could but, man, what a way to screw your players. As far as I know, no game has ever gotten to the point of needing to do this with a base currency. I can only imagine the kind of backlash it would be, because it would actually devalue the original currency. 

Iselin

Did they miss any trendy buzzwords? I may be wrong but I think they got them all.

Quizzical

maskedweasel said:

Vrika said:

They can always later on add LB2Token that will work just like LBToken and also be limited supply. Then LB3Token, LB4Token, etc.

They definitely could but, man, what a way to screw your players.

Isn't that kind of the point of games where the NFTs are the point of the game?  I find it baffling when people assume that when there's a clear conflict between the interests of players and the interests of developers, the developers will side with the players in games where the monetization scheme is the point of the game.  They commonly don't even do that in games where the game is the point of the game.

maskedweasel

Quizzical said:

maskedweasel said:

Vrika said:

They can always later on add LB2Token that will work just like LBToken and also be limited supply. Then LB3Token, LB4Token, etc.

They definitely could but, man, what a way to screw your players.

Isn't that kind of the point of games where the NFTs are the point of the game?  I find it baffling when people assume that when there's a clear conflict between the interests of players and the interests of developers, the developers will side with the players in games where the monetization scheme is the point of the game.  They commonly don't even do that in games where the game is the point of the game.

Not really. The idea of NFTs and ownership is to be inclusive in bringing players into the fold so they profit or at least don't lose out on the items they buy that they no longer wish to own. 

It's okay to have fixed currencies if it isn't your main currency.  There are games that have fixed amounts of currencies but most I'm game transactions are with a non blockchain currency. 

I think they're making a mistake with a limited currency used for everything in a game. Consistently traded currencies aren't good options to limit. Plus there's no drain if you can't burn it, unless the next phase, introducing the new currency is what they'll do to burn the first generation. What a shit show that will be. 

KnightFalz

It's not another pixel creature game. That's something in itself.

The site links to a PDF that actually has a fair amount of information regarding the actual game aspect, far more than I've typically seen for games with a piay to earn element.

The game part actually even comes first in the document. Unusual...

It might merit a bit more than outright dismissal. At least it doesn't quite feel as though the game is the complete afterthought most of these seem.

saker

Mendel said:

Another day, another article that discusses a possible future game's monetization plans instead of the game play.  Monetization isn't the most important feature of a game for players, only for the developers.

This is the essence of Necrotic-stage-capitalism, all "business" is wholly about the spreadsheet, wholly about quickest pay-out, whatever the supposed "goods" or "services" are, that's entirely secondary at-best to the quick cash payoff.

vegetableoil

There are 100's of NFT game project, most of them will fail. it's the same with crypto, tons of scam and tons of failed "project" and every single one of them has "whitepaper" and mostly copy paste from other project lol.

olepi

"the feeling of a game" and "the stakes of reality".

The exact opposite of what I want. I want a virtual world with the feeling of reality, and the stakes of a game.

maskedweasel

Torval said:

maskedweasel said:

Not really. The idea of NFTs and ownership is to be inclusive in bringing players into the fold so they profit or at least don't lose out on the items they buy that they no longer wish to own.

F1 Delta has entered the chat.

Well, intention and execution rarely intersect. 

Kyleran

Quizzical said:

It sounds like their goal is to make a completely generic MMORPG and then add NFTs to it.  And if your goal for the game part of the game is to make a generic knock-off, then you're not likely to accidentally make a game that is actually good.

If that's not their goal, then perhaps they should talk more about the game part of the game.  What is it that they hope will make their game interesting to gamers?  NFTs won't.

You have it backwards, they started with the Blockchain, Crypto, NFT backbone and started building a MMO around it to sucker the rubes...err appeal to gamers.

MMONFT through and through, and a hard pass, at least for me.

Kyleran

Torval said:

maskedweasel said:

Torval said:

maskedweasel said:

Not really. The idea of NFTs and ownership is to be inclusive in bringing players into the fold so they profit or at least don't lose out on the items they buy that they no longer wish to own.

F1 Delta has entered the chat.

Well, intention and execution rarely intersect. 

I feel like I really do get where you're coming from and want you to be able to realize your hope for this kind of platform. However, the reality of the execution is where I have a problem with these systems now.

This is exactly why I think governance and regulatory oversight is necessary. Not because the concept is inherently flawed (that's for another discussion anyway), but rather because we're in a reality where the execution of these games and platforms is already underway and there are a lot of potential and actual bad case scenarios being played out. Even if a few good actors can surface, the lack of oversight will continue to allow the bad actors to flourish.

Here's an issue for me, who can I trust to give me accurate information or recommendations as it takes a master's degree in crypto finance to navigate this crap and all I want to do is play MMOs with my cats sitting in my lap.

Ridrith

Oh good, another scam game. Hope it fails, and quickly. I also hope whoever made the choice to invest money, resources, and time into it takes deep losses from its eventual failure. Just to really drive home the point that NFTs aren't the future and that they're scummy.

maskedweasel

Torval said:

maskedweasel said:

Torval said:

maskedweasel said:

Not really. The idea of NFTs and ownership is to be inclusive in bringing players into the fold so they profit or at least don't lose out on the items they buy that they no longer wish to own.

F1 Delta has entered the chat.

Well, intention and execution rarely intersect. 

I feel like I really do get where you're coming from and want you to be able to realize your hope for this kind of platform. However, the reality of the execution is where I have a problem with these systems now.

This is exactly why I think governance and regulatory oversight is necessary. Not because the concept is inherently flawed (that's for another discussion anyway), but rather because we're in a reality where the execution of these games and platforms is already underway and there are a lot of potential and actual bad case scenarios being played out. Even if a few good actors can surface, the lack of oversight will continue to allow the bad actors to flourish.

I'm not against regulation. No doubt it's on the way whether I'm for or against it, my only concern is that people will have a false security in regulation like they've had in the past with other industries. 

I'm hopeful there will be mainstream cases where blockchain works. I guess I'm just more patient in that regard. I'm okay waiting for a few of the positive uses, even in the face of so many terrible ones. 

In many ways I appreciate the failures as much as the successes. I want people to understand the risks and learn from the mistakes of others in the industry. Maybe even scare off the speculative investors. We've completely bypassed the ability to let these games mature organically. 

It feels like in the case of this game, it may be that they were a dev studio that just couldn't hack it without falling back on tokenomics. I wouldn't be surprised if animocabrands straight up said "if you build it with blockchain we'll fund it". 

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

vegetableoil

Kyleran said:

Torval said:

maskedweasel said:

Torval said:

maskedweasel said:

Not really. The idea of NFTs and ownership is to be inclusive in bringing players into the fold so they profit or at least don't lose out on the items they buy that they no longer wish to own.

F1 Delta has entered the chat.

Well, intention and execution rarely intersect. 

I feel like I really do get where you're coming from and want you to be able to realize your hope for this kind of platform. However, the reality of the execution is where I have a problem with these systems now.

This is exactly why I think governance and regulatory oversight is necessary. Not because the concept is inherently flawed (that's for another discussion anyway), but rather because we're in a reality where the execution of these games and platforms is already underway and there are a lot of potential and actual bad case scenarios being played out. Even if a few good actors can surface, the lack of oversight will continue to allow the bad actors to flourish.

Here's an issue for me, who can I trust to give me accurate information or recommendations as it takes a master's degree in crypto finance to navigate this crap and all I want to do is play MMOs with my cats sitting in my lap.

I agree, seeing the large amount of scams on crypto, it's probably going to creep to most "games" that offer NFT's I would just stay away from games that offers NFT, to avoid potentially becoming a victim. especially those that asked for funding at kickstarter. for most of them, it's just going to be a blackhole.

k61977

They lost me at NFT. Doesn't matter if the game is good or bad, wont touch it if it has blockchain anything attached to it.