Why should any player be payed to play a game? The value of a game is player enjoyment, so if they are enjoying the game, that is payment enough, no? As with anything new in the crypto space must be asked the question "Who is paying, and why?".

In most "Pay to Earn" games, the model is that users buy tokens or NFT's in order to gain advantage in the game, in order to earn more tokens, in order to earn a profit. But ultimately, someone must be losing money in this system. And in order for it to be sustainable, that person must be ok with losing the money, because they are getting some value in return. If everyone expects to earn, that is not sustainable when people start to realize that putting more money in does not always mean more money out.

What value does a player provide to a game that the game does not provide to the player? The answer is - players provide the value of competent and interesting opposition. Human players are often more competent, generally less predictable and more interesting than AI opposition. Not all players enjoy a game to the same degree, and many players might want human opposition in a particular game when they're not able to get it from their friends. In such a case, human players can provide value to other human players, value worth paying for.

"Pay to earn" should be based on the matching of players who want human opposition and can't get it for free, with those who want to play for winnings or earnings. The player who wants human opposition should be consciously putting up payment (whether paid in hours or money added to a pot that the other players can win) in exchange for the service of competent opposition.

Thoughts? Is there a market for hiring human players as opposition in games as a superior alternative to playing against AI?