# Users' Perceptions of Key Blockchain Features in Games
## 5 Discussion  
This study examined whether the blockchain adds value to the gaming experience. This was done by creating a blockchain game and demonstrating it to interviewees. This chapter analyzes the results by discussing core findings in the context of relevant literature. Transparency is one of the core benefits of blockchain-based systems [3; 12] and the interviews gave useful feedback on system transparency issues. Many interviewees raised both privacy concerns and possible applications of transparent data. In addition, the traceability of transactions was mentioned by interviewees, which is also emphasized by [PERSON] et al. [8]. We propose researching high-level abstractions, for example, experimental settings where transparency is represented as an independent variable. Another interview topic was blockchain-related security. The underlying proposal was to determine whether the interviewees trusted blockchain applications. However, not a single participant gave a direct answer to that question. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [11] state that blockchain transparency or trust does not significantly affect blockchain adoption. Based on the findings of this study, blockchain in gaming was not seen as a security threat, although there were some critical replies to transparency and trust issues. Our findings of player retention are supported partly by previous studies. [PERSON] et al. [12] argue that games should not be too easy to play to increase retention. According to our findings, some participants stated that the game did not have enough meaningful content to increase their willingness to play it in the future. Following [PERSON] et al. 's [12] argument, it would be safe to assume that implementing blockchain into games would not attract individuals to play the game again if the game itself was not perceived as engaging. However, participants who said they would like to try the game again said that the blockchain was the reason, and in more detail, they were interested in creating blockchain assets. Additionally, there were two interviewees who stated that they would want to play the game again, although the game was unengaging for them. This suggests that there is something interesting in the implementation of blockchain rather than in the game itself. The issue of solving player retention can be difficult, as the literature findings show reduced retention for both too-easy and too-difficult games [12; 21]. [PERSON] et al. [14] presented a model with four types of engagement: environmental engagement, social engagement, self-engagement, and action engagement. The model provided a possibility to analyze the engagement type of those interviewees who identified engaging aspects in the artifact. However, the model by [PERSON] et al. [14] defines engagement types on a very conceptual level, while the participants in our interviews identified specific reasons for engagement. That is why we first divided the engagement types into three categories that closely correspond to interview replies: competitive engagement (P4, P6, P9), engaging generation (P5, P8), and engaging progression (P7). From the three categories, engaging generation is the easiest to identify as a blockchain characteristic because the blockchain provides practice for genuine asset ownership. When reflecting on our results of the model by [PERSON] et al. [14], the types of engagement would be environmental engagement (curiosity, relaxation, exploration) and self-engagement (customizing and developing a story around the character). Although social engagement did not come up in the answers based on the demonstrated game, the interviews revealed that enabling social engagement (i.e., token trading) would be relevant for a blockchain-based application. The financial aspects of crypto assets received little attention from the respondents, although blockchains offer room for emerging design solutions for handling monetary issues. Instead, there were varying opinions on what makes assets valuable in the first place (intrinsic versus instrumental values).