To answer the question $YGG on what criteria YGG selects games for collaboration, I think we need to move away from the simplistic view that 'if the game is hot, then YGG gets involved.'
If we look back at YGG's entire journey, we will see that they do not operate as a pure game investment fund, but as an organization managing community and assets in on-chain gaming.
Therefore, YGG's criteria for selecting games do not revolve around short-term hype, but rather the ability to build and maintain a long-lasting player ecosystem of value.
The first and most important criterion in my opinion is whether the in-game economy has enough depth for players to actually create value.
YGG does not seek games where players just 'click to receive tokens'.
These models can grow fast, but they can also collapse quickly.
From the early days of Axie Infinity to later games, YGG prioritizes games with competitive elements, skills, strategies, or learning time.
A very practical reason: if players have to invest effort and skills, they will stick around longer, and the value created does not solely depend on new players.
I have observed many play-to-earn games fail due to the lack of this factor; when the reward decreases, there is no reason to stay.
The second criterion is a clear on-chain asset structure with the ability to operate sustainably.
YGG invests heavily in NFTs: characters, land, items.
But not every NFT is the same.
YGG avoids games where NFTs are merely collectible or only have speculative value.
They prioritize NFTs that have clear utility in gameplay and the ability to generate recurring revenue, such as renting, using in competitive activities, or participating in a broader ecosystem.
In Axie or The Sandbox, NFTs are not just for holding but for operating.
In my opinion, this is a decisive factor because YGG needs assets that can be liquid, not 'dead' assets.
Another very important criterion is the ability to organize a large-scale player community.
YGG does not just ask 'is this game good?', but asks 'does this game allow thousands, even tens of thousands of players to coexist and compete?'.
A game with good gameplay but limited players or lacking expansion mechanisms will not fit the guild model.
During the period I watched YGG expand into many areas, it was clear they prioritized games that allowed for player stratification: newcomers, skilled players, and professional players.
This helps the guild organize training, allocate assets, and optimize performance.
The fourth criterion is the development team and their ability for long-term updates.
YGG cannot control the game’s roadmap, so they must choose partners capable of maintaining products over many years.
A Web3 game not only needs to launch well, but also needs to continuously update to retain players.
I have seen many games with attractive tokenomics, but the team lacks the capability to operate the live game.
For YGG, this is a big risk because they build the community around that game.
If a game dies, the community will be directly affected.
Another often-overlooked factor is the level of openness of the game to guilds.
Not every game is suitable for the guild model.
Some games are designed for each player to operate completely independently, or limit asset sharing.
YGG prioritizes games that accept — even encourage — guild participation: allowing asset rentals, organizing teams, or competing as a team.
This is very important because guilds only truly create value when there is space to organize and optimize collectively.
In my view, a more strategic criterion is the level of dependence of the game on token price.
YGG learned this lesson very early from the first play-to-earn cycle.
Games where the playing experience relies too much on token price are often not sustainable.
When the token drops, the motivation to play disappears.
YGG therefore prioritizes games where the value of playing comes from gameplay, competition, or asset ownership, not just from rewards.
Tokens should only be an incentive layer, not the core experience.
A noteworthy point is that YGG does not choose games in isolation, but chooses based on a portfolio.
They do not bet everything on one game or one genre.
FPS, RPG, strategy, metaverse — each type has different cycles and player demographics.
This diversification helps YGG reduce systemic risk.
When a game or genre declines, other sectors can still maintain activity.
In my opinion, this is a mindset very similar to portfolio management, but applied to the gaming community.
It should also be emphasized that YGG chooses games based on the ability to create opportunities for players in developing countries.
Games that require high hardware, overly specialized skills, or significant entry costs often struggle to scale in these regions.
YGG prioritizes games that can reach broadly, but still have depth for skilled players to rise.
This is how they build a global community, not just focusing on a niche market.
Finally, in my opinion, the most important criterion — but also the hardest to quantify — is whether that game allows YGG to build its own community.
YGG does not want to be just a 'land renter' in the game ecosystem.
They want to build an identity, culture, and structure for their community.
A suitable game is one that allows guilds to create their own tournaments, train players, build content, and develop community brands.
As I mentioned, games can be forked, but communities cannot.
YGG selects games based on the ability to protect and expand that advantage.
In summary, YGG does not choose games because of hype, but for the ability to build a sustainable player ecosystem around that game.
Their criteria revolve around in-game economics, asset structure, community scalability, development team, and suitability for the guild model.
This is a slow, selective approach that can be easily misunderstood in the short term.
But it is precisely this way of selecting games that helps YGG survive through many cycles, while most other GameFi projects have disappeared along with their narratives.
@Yield Guild Games #YGGPlay $YGG
