🤔

BCG or Game-Fi ?

First, there is a critical differentiation between "BCG" and "Game-Fi." As the term suggests, "BCG" encompasses games that utilize blockchain technology. On the other hand, "Game-Fi" refers to games incorporating a financial aspect, often characterized as Play-to-Earn. In essence, Game-Fi involves playing games to generate income. Certain examples include the gamification of DeFi or routine activities, which do not fundamentally rely on gaming elements.
Game-Fi creates assets (fungible tokens or non-fungible tokens) on the blockchain and distributes them to users, enabling the conversion of generated rewards into liquid assets. Users can earn by exchanging tokens awarded as rewards for major tokens through decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms, such as decentralized exchanges (DEX), and subsequently converting them into fiat currency via centralized exchanges (CEX) for withdrawal. Should the game gain widespread popularity, direct exchanges with CEX may become feasible or the tokens could be utilized directly for payment purposes.
Indeed, games can be classified as a "BCG" due to its blockchain foundation and also as well as a "Game-Fi" because it facilitates income generation. Consequently, the question arises: Is "BCG" a "Game-Fi"?
We believe the answer to this question is "NO".
"Game-Fi" primarily employs blockchain technology due to the relative ease of converting digital assets into fiat currency. In the realm of online gaming, RMT (Real Money Trade: unauthorized transactions involving in-game items or accounts for cash) has been a longstanding practice. In essence, disregarding prohibitions and legal restrictions imposed by game operators, a concept akin to "Game-Fi" could be deemed feasible in the present day.
Nonetheless, such practices primarily concern the user side, while for game operators, these actions pose a risk to the in-game economy. By establishing an in-game market utilizing blockchain technology, operators can regulate the in-game economy and augment their revenue streams through secondary commissions. Officially trading these assets would be more advantageous for users as well. The resulting scenario creates a mutually beneficial outcome for all parties involved, potentially serving as one of the solutions within BCG. Game-Fi tends to highlight this capability and the acquisition of redeemable assets.
So is Re.Monster a "Game-Fi" or a "BCG"?
​
We define Re.Monster as a "BCG".
Naturally, utilizing blockchain technology in "Game-Fi" presents logical benefits, as previously outlined. However, the current conception of "Game-Fi" appears to be excessively centered on the "earning" aspect. Consequently, users may abandon or discontinue participation due to the extreme volatility of the asset and diminished earning potential resulting from increased speculation. One must question whether this truly represents an appropriate framework for a gaming experience.
Our decision to categorize Re.Monster as a "BCG" rather than "Game-Fi" stems from its primary focus not being on "earning"; purchasing in-game items (assets) is more suitably characterized as "consumption" rather than "investment/speculation." Even in the absence of financial profit, there is inherent "value" in the "experience" derived from playing the game, which is of utmost importance. Interestingly, BCGs offer the unique attribute of generating "value" as both an "experience" and an "asset" through in-game actions. Ultimately, it is crucial that the acquisition of "value (FT/NFT/SBT)" results from the enjoyment of playing the game, rather than prioritizing earning potential. If monetary gain transpires as a result, it would represent one of the ideal forms of BCGs.