Basically, the game developer will treat BitShares Play as a service, integrate it through JSON APIs with the help of delegates(as smart oracles).
Could you further explain to what extend the delegates fulfill the role of smart oracles? Sounds very interesting.
The maximum total supply of play shares should be limited, but that do not apply to the game assets, the games assets can grow or drop with flexibility as long as they follow the inner exchange model (having related amount of shares as the collateral). Different games can share and using the same game asset since they are decentralized issued, and one games can also using several game assets at the same time.
Do you mean different games will have different bitAssets and all bitAssets are traded with one another just like bitAssets are traded on BTSX?
If so, what would the game-specific bitAssets be? Why would there be different bitAssets between games? Sound like everybody would gravitate towards using bitUSD again.
Thanks for your suggestions, but can you talk more about why games like MMO would not want to have limited token as currency?
It all comes down to the Inside Money / Outside Money
dichotomy. I still haven't seen anybody explain bitAssets in the light of this important distinction. The above linked document is a good read.
In essence, limited tokens are outside money by definition, they can never be inside money. As a result they are also always commodity money. Commodity money can never be stable in value in and of itself, it will fluctuate considerably as history has shown.
BitAssets are a new beast of money (if they end up working properly). BitAssets are not inside money, as a bitAsset is not the credit of one economic actor and debit of somebody else (i.e. zero net supply).
Nor are bitAssets real outside money as they (should) track the relative value of another asset, be that asset a commodity or inside money itself (as is the case with bitUSD/EUR, etc). However, bitAssets behave like outside money in as far as they are not zero net supply in the economy. This is also why I am not sure whether bitAssets will ever truly track the relative value of the assets they represent, as they have different use-values compared to their real counterpartys (e.g. you can send bitUSD anywhere in the world, anonymously, at no risk of confiscation, however without FDIC).
The closest analogy I can find for bitAssets is USD credit extended by shadow banks, as they often work almost exactly the same way BTSX works. These shadow banks swap futures and secondary swap agreements for credit and for real claims on assets with one another to create the non FDIC backed USD. I think what BM really created with BTSX is a distributed shadow banking system for every man (with all its potential downsides and upsides).
All this said, as MMO money is no inside money, it is always outside money (i.e. commodity money). This is why "economists" need to be hired for these massive games to steer the economy, they need to "print" and "destroy" commodity money at will in order to stabilize the internal MMO markets and prices of items. A game with limited tokens tradable outside the game would experience even more severe price spikes and falls than Bitcoin, effectively heavily undermining the overall user experience.
Actually, I think potential games may tend to do that, because this will increase the economic experience in games significantly, and the centralized benevolent entity economic model will basically harm their system in some sense. Even though they get the power inside game, but will lose the competition advantage to others.
As explained in my last paragraph above, the he centralized benevolent entity economic model is what keeps the economies of these MMOs alive in the first place.
All that said, MMOs might want to integrate bitUSD/EUR, etc into theyr games as currencies, and they might be open to limiting certain special items and making them tradable (think some awesome sword existing only 100 times in WOW).