This conversation present interesting problem.
5 years ago we played a game, steemmonsters. It was interesting relatively cheap funny game. Was it investment? Maybe at some levels? Definitely with time, when gaining value, it changed perspective of people and became investment. This perspective probably influence every next hive nft project to the point that investment and speculation becomes more important than game itself, can even exist without game.
It is much easier to convince someone to play the game than to invest.
This GLS thing is not even game yet but already investment.
We can agree that it is much better when game, being good change to investment eventually, than just investment from the start.
Not sure you can be convinced to invest, cause there is nothing still, maybe you can be tricked into it, by arguments above that Pele played MLS few decades ago and it's splinterlands developing game(not even sure about that, it could be just branding and new people hired), am not convinced by that either, could be tricked but experienced enough to just wait for a game, but I see how it is investment speculation, and how it damages project already.
I would like to play the game, and might try it when released but at this point it is purely investment, speculation, already with increased risk after this event. Little bit afraid already that game will not matter, scared that 90% of the game will be just farming tokens.
Something to think about as well. Mindset. The investor and the gamer are two different beasts. Both highly competitive for instance, but do not intertwine. Investor loses, it's game over. Gamer loses, it's time to start a new round. Investor feels like they're winning by getting in early. Gamer feels like they've lost before they started if they get in late. Investor wants a competitive edge. Gamer wants an even playing field. If the gamer wins every time, they lose interest. Investor wins every time, they gain interest.
Could go on and on but the point is, they're not even playing the same game. Some shared traits but built entirely different.
To end that with a joke, I want to say I'm certain these games would benefit from a few rounds of psychotherapy.
I, personally, do not want to single out any projects or individuals in this space. Nobody is right, nobody is wrong. It's their work, not mine. If I'm telling people how to do their jobs, I'm getting paid for it. I'm noticing many lean towards governance and governance tokens anyway. There's your say. No need to talk. But did anyone notice, by default, there are two conflicting parties? Naturally, it is highly unlikely the gamer will ever be in charge of the game. The hybrid is incredibly rare.
On another note, false advertising. Yeah, there's a lot of that and this new branch of industry seems hungry and doesn't mind eating itself to death, but since I'm not convinced, it's not my problem.