For once, I have to disagree! (This is good - discourse is growth :) )
Specifically about "You're the boss":
Note: I'm a big newbie on Splinterlands and haven't tried other blockchain games, so pardon my ignorance here
1. Does owning the coin grant "choosing power"?
As far as I know, even if you're a HUGE player with giant wins, you don't really get a say in the development of the game itself, do you?
I mean, you could threaten to leave and remove a big player (yourself) from the game if they do things you disagree with, but in theory the same could be said for a professional e-gamer to leave LoL if he doesn't like some change in the game, too.
2. This is technically (but not realistically) a feature in publicly traded companies
Realistically of course, your 10,000$ buy-in (assuming you're THAT invested) won't give you any real say on the direction of the company. Only the board of directors decides that stuff. But in theory if you're a millionaire you could buy up shares of the dev until you get a say.On the contrary, you could in theory become a shareholder in the devs of Call of Duty (cool fact I just learned - turns out that every other CoD game has a different dev - https://callofduty.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Call_of_Duty_developers).
3. Fan suggestions are not blockchain-speciic
Indie devs especially (but not only) listen to what their fandom says on forums. This is of course entirely dependent on company culture (menacing look at Blizzard), but is a known phenomenon.
So I guess what I mean is - isn't company culture and willingness to listen to fans more important than whether the game is on the blockchain or not?
- I suppose there is a strong argument to be made that since the gamers ARE the investors, that you don't get this gross corporate "remove that, add that, marketing team says it will sell more... add loot boxes even if players hate it..." etc.
P.S. Tagging @psyberx because they got an honorable mention in the post :) Which BTW I'm really looking forward to playing!!
SPS is kind of like shares but it puts you on the board to make decisions. With the introduction of SPS, fans/players/investors (basically us) can make proposals that will be voted on.
When you think about it, blockchain gaming is EXACTLY what gamers have been craving for. When you go to forums and shit, you see COD players complaining about one thing or the other. The latest is the riot shield that we just wear at the back for protection. Many players hate it.
If COD was on a blockchain, someone will create a proposal and vote based on their stake to determine the next step.
There's still a very looooooooong road ahead for blockchain gaming but if it eventually proffers solutions for the problems that traditional gaming platforms face, evolution will be the logical action.
Oh, thanks! Splinterlands has at least 3 different "currencies" and it gets very confusing for a beginner to understand what is what.
Ahhh, so you're proposing a stake-based voting economy?
In theory this would be excellent - however, keep in mind that without a clear roadmap and sensible limits (players understandably "want it all" but devs can't deliver the "everything" game) it could turn into mayhem.
What could work is similar to an NGO that I support financially here (they're essentially lobbyists for the 99%).
Every few months, they decide on a range of topics (e.g. poverty vs environment vs worker's rights vs corruption), but with specific goals in mind and all members vote (albeit there you get 1 vote no matter your financial contribution). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobby_99
Depending on how they set up their voting system, they will either only fight for the top voted issue (say early on when they only had the manpower to deal with one issue at a time), divide their work up over the top 3 issues according to the % of votes given to each, etc etc