First: There are cryptos with small transaction fees and the ability to store data in the chain itself easily, such as Bitcoin Cash. You can store some user activity of the game on the blockchain, the technical possibility is there - you CAN, but this doesn't means you should HAVE to. It makes no sense to spam the blockchain with random game variables. It makes sense to use it as a payment system in the game, to control item purchaches and such.

Second: html games making far more sense than these wasd flyby techdemo ,,games'' made in unity and in other similar joke environments. Modern browsers can load and handle the assets easily, making a game engine should be straightforward and easy even for beginners.

Optimization: I dont think there will be any optimization issues, starting from 2012 to 2018 i have measured multiple emulator cores in browser vs C code (the code was the same, just the syntax was changed to compile it under both environment). Html was only about 50-60% slower, so nothing deadly slow. Instead of optimization, you might get compatibility issues instead, like webgl will maybe not work, or will be slow on certain systems. If you want to focus on optimization, just ensure not to use too much polygons and textures, be logical and think on people who have like 32 kbyte/sec download on a cellphone, and trying to run your game like that. This is where the optimization begins, with the sober mind and realistic design, and not with localstorages and not random pre-alpha-technologies.

But as we’re living in the advent of Web3.0, I was wondering if there is any multi- or single-player project trying / thinking of integrating blockchain into their browser game to alleviate the hurdles above?
Like identifying user based on his wallet or storing game data directly on-chain… or anything like that?

If you want examples of browser games having integrated NFTs, have a look at ev.io, miniroyale.io, and, in a certain way, what The Sandbox is doing

I don't like the whole blockchain idea.
However:
1. Looking at my kids, and their friends: Fortnight is huge. How huge? They talk about it the same way I used to talk about game consoles. One could argue that MMOG are proto-metaverses. The kids don't much care about the game itself, but are rather invested in the community inside the game. In real time… They don't talk about it forums. They set playdates in fortnight.
2. I do think there is incentive to share assets cross game to enable cross promotion. It makes no sense for Assassins Creed to import an asset from an indie game, but it makes all the sense in the world for the indie game to use an asset/achievement from Assasins Creed to promote itself.
3. I agree, blockchain is garbage for all of this

Envision the following: Instead of Facebook creating a metaverse, Nintendo creates a meta-verse with all of their existing IP and gaming oriented users. This metaverse isn't forever, but will have the lifespan of a normal console (a decade or so?). Doesn't that sound more likely?

SillyCow said:
Envision the following: Instead of Facebook creating a metaverse, Nintendo creates a meta-verse with all of their existing IP and gaming oriented users. This metaverse isn't forever, but will have the lifespan of a normal console (a decade or so?). Doesn't that sound more likely?

The final vision seems slightly different, if i understood it correctly:

In the end, there will be only one Metaverse. A single hub, which you use to play Super Mario, but also to see a immersive virtual simulation of the car you might eventually buy. And you can change the color of the car, and you can drive some rounds on your favorite Mario Kart track to test the car. Basically a 3D realtime internet. So i see two options:

1. There is just one platform holder. Sony, MS and Steam is no longer needed. One winner takes it all. Explains the interest of some CEOs. But usually, if new things come up, they come from a new player, distanced from the legacy establishment of the old school past. So likely Zuckerberg just pays the bill to develop new tech, but then someone else will earn. Maybe they have still enough money left to buy the winning startup, but i doubt it.

2. No more need for a platform holder either, because the promise of decentralization holds. It's like internet, where everybody can do anything as long as he uses html.
To make this work, web3 is meant to use AI to replace standards and conventions with a form of natural language, so servers can communicate without a need to agree on some restricted protocol. Wolfram Alpha would be a first example of such intelligent technology, they say.
But the consequences would be similar: Investors pumping money into the idea would disempower themselves. Because if it works, no more need for Amazon, Google, etc. There is no single winner in the end. Instead the mega corps would loose and the small people would win.

The fishy smell comes from the fact that trumpeting investors loose in either case. The promises can't match their true intend.
Or they are just naive. Zuck thinks fb would replace the whole internet, Sweeney thinks the whole internet will run on his engine.
Much more likely it looks like the real investors in the background just want to ensure they are on top of a potential raising tide of tech innovation, so they can adapt to any uncertain future situation more easily to secure their power.

But that's just my interpretation. In reality, both ‘Metaverse’ and ‘Web3’ are seemingly undefined buzzwords.
It feels like: You shall not ask what those terms mean, if you want to be hip, an early bird, and profit from the ‘new idea’. You shall just believe there is some new idea, and you pretend to be part of it, to ride on top of the tide.
Which is the same mindset as we currently see related to NFTs or crypto in general. Promises, visions, words, influencers, some rich kids to proof success. But no substance, no new technology, no solutions to any problems.

SillyCow said:
Doesn't that sound more likely?

Honestly, no.

Ideas are easy, cheap, and numerous. Implementation is difficult, expensive, and rare.

What you described is like a kid saying “I want a game that is 300x bigger than GTA 5, with twice and many weapons, and you can do anything you want!" It's fine for a dream, but has no basis in reality. Somebody someday might make something like that, but it's hardly realistic in the near term.

frob said:
I want a game that is 300x bigger than GTA 5

When i am seeing these 150 GByte games, i can see that the kids gta clone will be indeed 300x BIGGER :P Using 4096x4096 bmp files for the textures of the flowers around the road, and 20 gbyte high poly character models will indeed help a lot to achieve this dream.

Having worked on several games that fit that description, it's a mixed bag.

Players continuously complain about the size of assets. In one where the game is open and mods, players look at the sizes of released asset, this type of tree is 100MB, that type of tree is 90MB, these crocus assets are 45 MB, the hibiscus assets are 40 MB, and so on, they protest how wasteful and inefficient, how unoptimized, how terrible the systems must be. Yes indeed we have material layers that are 4K square, sometimes even 8K square when needed. Same thing with audio, we not only have full symphonic audio records, but also a huge variety of sound effects for every environment, every creature,, every weapon, and nearly every object in the game. If you're wearing a flak suit or a ghillie suit or a loincloth each comes with a bunch of different Foley sounds. Sure we support stereo, we also support 5.1, and everything through 7.1.4, and we have Dolby Atmos certification. And wouldn't you know it but the wide variety of audio files are enormous. Players will ask, “Why does this specific assault rifle contain 3 MB of sound data? Why does a simple raft contain 10 MB of sound data?” Players decry that the game is a waste of space requiring 150 GB, and that clearly the development team knows absolutely nothing about resource efficiency, or compression, and that the devs are absolute garbage and requiring so much disk space. I think of that 150 GB and am amazed how we got so many terabytes of source assets down that small.

Then in their next post, they will show a video or an image of a beautiful grove, basically the garden of Eden, with a bunch of incredibly detailed close-up flowers and trees, and a grand expanse opening up before them with hundreds of curated models, photo-realistic clouds with God rays, a pool of water in the distance, and an assortment of high detail animals near and far, birds, fish, and insects, their customized user-painted constructions or their dream home, all animated with gentle breezes showing in the foliage and water across the entire world, and praising the game for creating stunning imagery and immersion.

You don't get it both ways. If you want to get nose-to-nose with every creature and have them look beautiful, be able to reach out and touch the realistic environments, comprehensive audio, the asset space becomes a necessary cost. I suppose we could always go back to the 8-bit era with 4 kilobyte cartridges to store the game including art and beeps. There are very good reasons AAA games today cost a quarter billion dollars or more to develop. So often the things people claim they want and complain about are simultaneously in direct opposition to what they review and post about as the best features.

This is yet another factor in why what is described just won't work. There may someday be a different solution that resolves the issues, but no tech today will bring in the resources from a wide variety of games and have them form a coherent whole.

I dont want to have it both ways, as a developer i only recently switched from ~ 32x32 textures to 64x64 (ofc there are exceptions to this). as a gamer (i am not really a gamer any more so i am not sure how relevant my opinion is) i ignore titles above a couple of gb, also it would take multiple days for me to download them, which i will not do. google also restricts apk sizes in its store to 100 mbyte or something. unfortunately some game developers abuse it, and after installing the apk, the game itself starts to download multiple gbytes of assets on its own, to circumvent this, i hope google will eventually also ban this.

You doesnt have to agree with me, you do you, i respect that, and your choice is your choice as a developer / and as a gamer. I think the people who oppose these sizes are right, because a 100 gbyte vs a 1 gbyte game doesnt differs from each other in any ways (in my oppinion - no one has to agree with me). I think its just about fueling pointless megalomania, trying to quickly sedate the buyers with spectacular miracles and mobilizing marketing campaigns through influencers to get back the poinlessly blown money, before the masses jump from one useless title to another one after they realize its more boring even than …. (i will not insert any title here, to avoid triggering someone for no reason).

I agree that we shouldnt restrict ourselves with unnecessary limits, such as 100 kbyte cartridges. The thing is, in their own era, the cartridges were the usable and acceptible size, even the floppy disks for c64/pc were approx 360 kbyte, that was pretty much the acceptible size. And a few game developers released games on 3-4 floppies, i got very annoyed by those, and i remember people showed them around like bloody sword (oh look how fantastic the virtual reality is becoming, 4 floppies wow, wow, wow) and never played them ever again. As it was not comfy to handle that data size. Just like nowadays with these 200 gbyte games, they are just as bad idea, a game really shouldnt be bigger than a couple of gbytes. Maybe in 2040 (just put a random date here) when literally everyone will have at least 1 gigabit internet, and the cheapest $200 laptops and smart phones will ship with 100 tbyte integrated storages, these multiple 100 gbyte games will be acceptable. Until then, i am happy with the 100 mbyte limit in appstore.

Geri said:
a 100 gbyte vs a 1 gbyte game doesnt differs from each other in any ways (in my oppinion - no one has to agree with me).

Let's take a group of developers to discuss this.
Many of them are willing to lower some standards, to spend more focus on fun gameplay, and to lower costs on all ends.
Others of them prefer cutting edge, willing to pay price of high HW requirements and big downloads.

Then we listen some time for what they say. This is what we'll observe:
Cutting Edge guys mostly agree on their choices. They also agree on HW and SW technology to use. Subtle differences - enough to have a discussion, but more agreement than argue.
Alternative guys disagree with them, but the disagree even more across each other. Their choices of sacrifices and compromises differ wildly: Texture and geometry resolution, baked or dynamic lighting, 20 vs. 100 bones, etc. They can't agree on any point, and they can't convince any other to follow their own choice of priorities.

Looking at that from some distance, the conclusion is that the alternative guys are probably wrong. They can't agree, so they are probably on the wrong track.

On the other hand, the cutting edge guys may fail to keep minimum specs at the sweet spot. We have decades of a ‘increase size, detail and accuracy with every new game’ mentality behind us, backed by a HW industry who wants to sell their newest stuff, which works best by introducing new features and increasing power limits and chip sizes. At some point, which seems now, sweetspot HW is not even offered anymore. The platform became entirely enthusiast and high specs. The alternative of low power mobile games covers the rest, but HW is below the sweetspot and cutting edge isn't possible.

That's a pretty difficult situation. It's maybe not as bad yet as i say, but that's where we are heading, currently.
I think the only solution is not to lower standards (there is no way back), but to enable future progress more based on better software than relying on increasing HW power.
That means progress at a lower rate, but people are used to that anyway, as the visual difference between HW generations natural becomes smaller and smaller too.

That said, i think you miss the proper argument about your own project. By saying ‘200 polys for a character, and 64 x 64 textures are good enough’ you only put yourself into the alternative guys group for no good.
The better argument is that low resolution content is easier to make, up to the point where a single person can make a small game without investing money and lots of time.
The applications probably also differ from AAA but also indie games. I could imagine something like interactive memes for example. If people can make a simple funny minigame on a webpage, and it would be possible to share such games across social platforms and comment sections, maybe this could be some new trend.