Our Web3 Metaverse Index tracks, evaluates and ranks all of the Web3 virtual worlds in the Metaverse. In order to construct the Metaverse Index, we apply eight key criteria to assess each virtual world. These are variables we've spent over 15 years examining within the Web2 sector that are equally relevant to the emerging Web3 market and also a set of criteria that we're probably the best-placed company to determine and measure. Order your free Web3 Index report here.
Using a scale of 5 (Excellent) to 1 (Poor), here are the eight ways we have rated each Web3 VW...
Senior Management Experience
We've looked at the composition of the senior management teams of each company to determine their previous experience in launching virtual worlds/online games, bringing products to market and developing engaging user experiences. Some of the platforms on our list have notable AAA game studio personnel in their senior teams as well as seasoned gaming executives. Other companies just have individuals with blockchain or crypto experience with a token (no pun intended) gamer listed as CTO.
Sure, you don't know what you don't know but in some cases, we have seen a large underestimation or under-appreciation of what's actually required to launch a virtual world. Companies falling into this category have scored lower than those with experienced and balanced management teams.
Business Model Evaluation
There are different genres of virtual worlds being developed. Some are 'Open-Worlds' meaning they're offering multiple experiences and 'reasons to engage' such as building, playing games, questing, socialising and owning land. There is also a growing trend of 'Play to Earn/Create/Move/Socialise/Collaborate. These business models present issues in the medium term due to their sustainability and in some cases are being constructed with pay-walls at every turn.
We have scored these platforms lower than those that are creating more 'free to play' experiences. We know what works and doesn't work in this market. Platforms that openly support User Generated Content (UGC), encourage socialising and have well-defined user journeys are scored higher.
Defined Target Market
Is the virtual world focussed on one specific genre and therefore target market or are they trying to be all things to all people? Virtual worlds have a higher probability of success when they develop a platform tailored to a specific genre or interest group, such as Art, Music or Sports. Inversely, positioning a virtual world as a place where you can play games, make friends, run a business, build a house, collect NFTs, level up and generally do 'anything' is not a recipe for success.
Generalist worlds have their place and there is already a number of these platforms in existence. Trying to appeal to everyone with everything is no longer a feasible business model and these companies are scored lower than those with better-defined target markets.
Better graphics doesn't necessarily translate to a better virtual world but when considering the on-boarding of the next cohort of users into the Metaverse, users with less knowledge of virtual worlds, we believe a more realistic and higher fidelity graphical experience gives an advantage over those with lower quality environments.
Developing a distinct brand identity for a virtual world be it on a stylised basis or themed to the genre also demonstrates a commitment from the company to develop an expanding world and user experience. Basically, it's very obvious which companies genuinely care about the enterprise compared to those that are using standard design tools. Virtual worlds with higher fidelity graphics receive higher scores in our index.
Let's not forget about the user experience please. No, it is not good enough to simply say a user can 'Join our world and buy our NFTs'. The virtual worlds that gain strong initial traction in user base growth and engagement will be the ones intensely focused on the user. Many Web3 virtual worlds are insisting on crypto wallet integration at point of sign-up with no option to enter without it. This is not good practice and 'out of the gate' paywalls leads to massive churn and friction. Avatar locomotion is also key to the user experience - the ease of driving the avatar, creating content and navigating around the world.
Again, we have seen some senior management teams with no personnel with experience in usability, community building or curating a user journey. With respect to rating virtual worlds on user experience, a score of 1 is given to all worlds in development (because there is no way to assess it) unless they have a gameplay demo that demonstrates the user experience. The score will be adjusted as soon as an open-beta version is available.
Companies in the Web3 virtual worlds market are at different stages of financing, funding and sales. Some have tokens already launched and tradable on exchanges that have provided financing to their operations. Others have completed successful NFT or land sales to fund development. Some companies have opted for VC and investor funding to activate their plans and others are at earlier stages of funding. Overall, we have looked at the ability of the companies to successfully raise equity funding and/or generate funding income from virtual asset sales and scored them accordingly.
When studying the whitepapers of each of the virtual worlds in the market (yes, we have read them all) it's been worrying to see the final task listed in their roadmap as 'Launching our Metaverse' and far too much emphasis on financial transaction led objectives (Phase 1, 2,3 landsales or NFT releases).
The launch of a virtual world is the start of the journey, not the end and more of the companies in this sector need to look beyond the launch. Consideration has to be given to the ongoing development of the virtual world, new features, new regions and new reasons to login in. Platforms that have given consideration to VW development post-launch have been scored higher than those taking a more short-term approach.
Creating a virtual world that is attractive to real-world brands is a critical success factor for companies in the Web3 market. Brands bring followers, fans and an audience that newly launched virtual worlds desperately need in order to scale up. Therefore, the overall positioning of the world becomes a key factor. Worlds tailored to specific genres have a huge advantage in this instance over those positioned as Open-Worlds. Graphical fidelity and user experience also play important roles here from brand and media planning perspectives. Virtual worlds positioned towards these variables are scored higher than those less suitable for real-world brand inclusion.
So, detailed above are the eight variables we have applied to each Web3 virtual world and rated accordingly. Multiplying each variable together therefore produces an overall Index score used to assess, compare and rank the 66 virtual worlds in the market. We'll be constantly updating the Web3 Metaverse Index as platforms move out of development and into open-beta, launch new features, bring in new personnel, complete land sales and attract brands. Each month we will provide a complete update of the Index. Contact Us to order the complete Web3 Metaverse Index.
The Top 20 Web3 Virtual Worlds in May 2023
The top 10 Web3 virtual worlds in May are shown below and we have a new leader this month with The Nemesis taking pole position from Blankos. A growing number of brand partnerships and activations has bumped The Nemesis to the top of our index. The top 20 list also sees a number of new entrants this month with StageVerse moving into fourth place and Viverse jumping up from 30th position into sixth in May. Both of these platforms are highly suitable for brand placement. Related articles: