Affiliate style marketing is not what I meant by revenue sharing.
In the spirit of people realising they are Facebook's product rather than Facebook's customers, the winners are not game's customers either. They are competition.
The lack of meaningful game play in popular blockchain games is not random. The playing field is levelled to eliminate this friction. You only introduce playability (and winners) if your other option is watching the customers leave.
Basically, we are all winners on the same day (token pumps) and we are all losers on other days (token dumps). That's the novelty experience. It is definately not a free lunch, though.
Never looked at the field like that and something I'd ponder on later. I think of cryptogames at this stage as a general experimental phase where the costs to develop them are lower and yet the pay off can be greater in some days and not.
I just think there would be a time when blockchain game devs would have to compete with pumping out more content over the competition. It's not too saturated yet. The market element where the game tokens can be traded adds another dimension to the balancing problem as less tokens printed can be upsetting a player base that aims for the money (and there's a lot of these drivers that can bring in some more hype to a game). I'm learning from how Axie tries to handle their balancing act together.