Axie Infinity, the undisputed Web3 champion game title (so far) of mainstream awareness, paradoxically managed to become both GameFi's most powerful gateway and most enduring albatross.

This is by no means an assault on Axie Infinity. In fact, a reasonable argument could be made that it had to be this way. The very things Axie did "wrong" were the very same attributes that allowed it to break the potential of blockchain gaming wide open. However, something with the ability to truly transform, as Web3 gaming does with respect to the video game industry, will generally have to evolve substantially to reach its maximum potential, and often over a meaningful amount of time.

If you are somehow invested in the future of GameFi and believe that it marks a new era that will alter the course of the game industry forever, an honest appraisal and understanding of Axie's influence, good and bad, is vital to any valid future contributions you may make--as a creator, developer, player or community member.

Where Axie Went Wrong (And Right)

Putting gameplay aside, the unfortunate reality is that Axie's primary influence on Web3 gaming was to establish a terribly unrealistic expectation for what Web3 games could and should offer players. Specifically, thousands of dollars, month over month. For any critically thinking outside observer, this is, of course, not sustainable. But it still left the next wave of games holding the bag and shouldered with the responsibility of generating similar value for their "players."

The rub here is that this yield is what undoubtedly attracted the majority of players to the game in the first place. The problem was that Axie's community wasn't composed of gamers looking for an experience, but crypto natives looking for a return. This is not to suggest that there's anything wrong with that. But the truth is, if Axie and the GameFi boom hadn't come along, something else would have, and they would have simply ended up there.

Where We Go From Here

While Axie may have ingrained in retail an unworkable set of expectations for other Web3 game developers, they did manage to finally make blockchain+gaming "click," and they certainly weren't the first to try. The rise of Axie, even if it was on the back of a totally unsustainable model, grabbed the attention of game developers like never before and over time aggregated a critical mass of actual gamers who were hungry for and demanded real Web3 games. Games that were fun to play even in the absence of obscene returns.

This new cohort of GameFi enthusiasts were less interested in yield and much more turned on by experience-driven philosophies. Interestingly, how little staying power the current design principles had seemed to galvanize and inspire the individuals that, through Axie and games like it, had glimpsed Web3 gaming's true potential.

What we are seeing more and more now is a game first design philosophy, given new life by the thrill of of how blockchain can offer new game mechanics, concepts of ownership and community involvement. Monetary value and yield still important, but being backed into instead of driving the car. It's a key difference that will result in wildy different games and ones that can potentially compete with, and maybe even surpass, the status quo.

For all of Axie's "failings," and the missteps of similar games that followed, the awakening it made room for is undeniable and we give credit where credit is due. It's easy in hindsight to point fingers and be an armchair game economist, but the critics' favorite talking point, in a way that would have been hard to predict, has inspired the next wave of Web3 games because people feel a responsibility to do it better and unlock the true potential of GameFi.