What if the real battle in the gaming industry was never "Traditional studios vs. Blockchain gaming" – but "Control vs. Trust," "Extraction vs. Alignment," and "Spectacle vs. Ownership"?
The BeInCrypto panel moderated by Alevtina Labyuk with Mark Rydon of Aethir and Inal Kardan of the TON Foundation makes one thing clear: Web3 gaming is not here to overthrow traditional studios – it's here to expose the limits of their current business model.[2]
From "better graphics" to "better economics"
For years, gaming metrics of success were simple: story and graphics.[2] In the era of decentralized technology, mobile gaming, and always‑on connectivity, those metrics are quietly being rewritten.
- It's no longer just how beautiful your world is, but how much agency players have inside it.
- It's no longer just how addictive your loop is, but how fair and transparent your virtual economies are.
- It's no longer just what players can consume, but what they can own, trade, and build as digital assets.
Yet the most uncomfortable truth for Web3 advocates remains:
95% of players don't care about the blockchain layer – they care about joy, fun, and frictionless play.[2]
This is the paradox every blockchain gaming team must solve:
How do you redesign the economics of games without ever making the technology the hero?
The 95% problem: When indifference is a signal, not a threat
As Inal Kardan bluntly puts it, most players "don't need blockchain… they play games for joy, for fun."[2] That isn't an objection; it's a design constraint.
The implication for game development is profound:
- The blockchain layer must be invisible to 95% of users.
- User experience must feel like the best of Web2 – familiar, fast, and seamless.
- The value of decentralization should emerge only at the exact moment it matters:
- when a player's digital ownership is at risk,
- when asset provenance or asset scarcity becomes meaningful,
- when real money, status, or time are on the line.
Kardan's example from the Telegram ecosystem is instructive.[2] Millions casually use digital gifts inside Telegram mini-apps without thinking about smart contracts. But a smaller, high-intent segment uses immutable smart contracts to secure and trade those assets, enforce scarcity, and guarantee provenance.
This is the emerging segmentation in Web3 gaming:
- A mass audience that expects pure fun and frictionless player experience.
- A smaller, economically active base for whom transparency, security, and on-chain assets are non-negotiable.
Thought-provoking concept:
If 95% don't care about the tech, should you design your Web3 game for the 95% and unlock blockchain for the 5% when the stakes justify it?
The $3 billion lesson: What centralized success looks like from the player's side
The CS:GO skins market is one of the most revealing case studies in centralized vs decentralized game economies.[2]
- A trading ecosystem around CS:GO skins grew to roughly $6 billion in market cap, with carefully defined rarity tiers.
- Then Valve, as the central authority, changed a single rule: players below the gold tier could burn red skins to obtain gold.[2]
- Overnight, gold scarcity collapsed, and the market value dumped to around $3 billion, wiping out millions in player-held value.[2]
From a traditional studio perspective, that's just live-ops.
From a player's perspective, that's an arbitrary monetary shock they had zero control over.
As Mark Rydon notes, this kind of unilateral rule change is precisely what immutable smart contracts are designed to prevent.[2]
In an NFT gaming or on-chain model:
- The rules governing asset scarcity, minting, and exchange are encoded in immutable smart contracts.
- Studios can still ship new content, balance gameplay, or launch expansions.
- But they cannot silently rewrite the fundamental terms of player monetization and digital ownership without transparent, on-chain changes.
Thought-provoking concept:
If you extracted your game economy and ran it as a stand‑alone financial product, would regulators consider your current ability to "patch" value a feature – or a systemic risk?
Talkers vs. builders: The grant-fueled illusion of innovation
When Sega, Ubisoft, and other traditional studios flirt with Web3 gaming, the question is not "Can they integrate blockchain?" but "Why would they ever give up control?"[2]
According to Kardan, many Web3 entrants – old and new – are still optimizing for grant distribution, not product-market fit:
"They jump from one blockchain to another looking for grants. That's not how games are built."[2]
This creates a dangerous illusion of progress:
- Development roadmaps are shaped around protocol incentives, not player needs.
- Short-term monetization models prioritize token launches over sustainable gaming economics.
- The industry reinforces the perception that Web3 gaming is more about speculation than gaming innovation.
Thought-provoking concept:
If your studio removed all ecosystem grants tomorrow, would your current blockchain gaming roadmap still make sense?
The developer's new social contract: Prove it or lose the narrative
Rydon's challenge to builders is stark: the burden of proof has shifted.[2]
It is "on the developers now, to find really solid use cases" and to convince gamers this is not "just a money grab" but "a useful feature."[2]
In practice, that means:
Blockchain integration must solve a real player problem:
- True cross-game ownership of digital assets across gaming platforms.
- Secure, permissionless trading ecosystems without arbitrary freezes or bans.
- Transparent gaming economics where monetization models are legible and predictable.
Technology integration has to:
- Lower friction, not add it.
- Enhance user engagement and player experience, not fragment it.
- Complement, never compete with, gameplay.
Naming a future flagship like GTA 6 as a potential turning point is not about that one title; it's about what happens when a truly mainstream IP proves that Web3 mechanics can be woven into the background fabric of the game.[2]
Thought-provoking concept:
What is the one player behavior in your game that would become 10x more valuable – for both you and the player – if it were cryptographically provable and tradable?
The invisible frictions: Control, platforms, and the mobile chokehold
Even when game development teams get the design right, the gaming ecosystem itself pushes back.
Kardan highlights practical blockers in mobile ecosystems and gaming distribution:[2]
- Telegram mini-apps struggle to sell digital goods directly under Apple and Google rules.
- Direct crypto payments are often unsupported or heavily constrained.
- In-app trading of digital assets is restricted or made cumbersome, undermining smooth onboarding and user engagement.
These constraints lead to a deeper strategic question for Web2 and traditional studios:
- If you already control the platform, the economy, and the distribution rails,
- Why would you voluntarily adopt decentralized technology that limits your unilateral power to:
- change fees,
- alter monetization models,
- or retroactively redefine gaming economics?
Kardan's warning is a useful litmus test for any Web3 gaming design:[2]
"When ninety percent of people in a game are there just to make money the system is not sustainable."
Healthy virtual economies need a layered motivation stack: fun, mastery, creativity, and economic participation, not just yield.
Thought-provoking concept:
Could you redesign your economy so that earning is a byproduct of playing, not the primary reason to show up?
Where common ground may finally emerge
Both Rydon and Kardan anticipate a future where three forces reshape the gaming industry:[2]
- AI-generated content driving deep personalization, procedural worlds, and automated game development pipelines.
- Blockchain gaming stabilizing into one monetization avenue among many, not the core identity of a game.
- A maturing Web3 gaming stack where Web3 elements run in the background, while player experience stays front and center.[1][2]
In this world:
- Web2 vs Web3 becomes a false dichotomy.
- The real divide is between:
- Games that treat players as renting attention, and
- Games that treat players as co‑owners of time, data, and assets.
Blockchain gaming then becomes less a category and more an infrastructure choice – a quiet guarantee that:
- Rules of digital ownership cannot be rewritten overnight.
- On-chain assets retain their integrity across gaming platforms.
- Players can exit with value, not just memories.
Strategic questions for leaders in the gaming industry
If you're leading a traditional studio, a Web3 gaming startup, or a hybrid team, the real opportunity lies in reframing your roadmap around questions like:
- Where does trust in our game economy currently depend on "just believe us," and could immutable smart contracts reduce that trust burden?
- Which player segments in our game would genuinely benefit from NFT gaming and digital ownership, and how do we keep everyone else blissfully unaware of the underlying blockchain layer?
- How can we design monetization models where our financial success is aligned with user engagement, not with volatility in token prices or grant flows?
- What part of our current centralized control is actually a liability – reputational, regulatory, or economic – disguised as an asset?
The shared future of traditional studios and blockchain gaming will not be defined by ideology, but by credibility:
- Can you prove – not pitch – that decentralized technology makes your gaming ecosystem fairer, more resilient, and more worth investing time into?
- Can you make Web3 so invisible, and player experience so compelling, that the question "Is this a blockchain game?" simply stops being asked?
The studios that can answer "yes" to both will be the ones that turn today's controversy into tomorrow's competitive advantage.
Is the conflict in gaming really "Traditional studios vs. Blockchain" or something else?
The panel argues the real divide is philosophical: "Control vs. Trust," "Extraction vs. Alignment," and "Spectacle vs. Ownership." Web3 isn't trying to overthrow studios so much as reveal limitations in centralized business models and offer alternatives for aligning player and studio incentives. This mirrors broader digital transformation challenges where traditional business models must evolve to meet changing user expectations for transparency and value alignment.
If 95% of players don't care about blockchain, should developers even build Web3 games?
Yes—if Web3 is applied as an invisible layer that unlocks value only when it matters. The design constraint is to keep the UX familiar and frictionless for most players, while enabling on-chain features (ownership, provenance, secure trades) for the smaller, economically active segment. This approach requires sophisticated customer segmentation strategies to deliver value to different user cohorts effectively.
What does "invisible blockchain" mean in practice?
It means integrating blockchain so it's not visible to casual players: seamless wallets, delegated transactions, and UX that feels like Web2. The blockchain should surface only where trust, scarcity, or cross-platform ownership is required. This requires sophisticated automation platforms to handle complex backend processes while maintaining simple user interfaces.
What lessons does the CS:GO skins market teach about centralized control?
The CS:GO example shows how a single centralized rule change (altering scarcity) can wipe out player value overnight. Immutable smart contracts can prevent unilateral rewrites of economic rules and protect player-held value and trust. This demonstrates the importance of transparent governance frameworks in digital economies where user investments are at stake.
How should studios decide which players need on-chain features?
Segment by intent: most players want fun and frictionless play; a smaller group is economically active and values transparency, provenance, and tradability. Design to keep blockchain hidden for the mass audience while enabling explicit on-chain functionality for the high-intent cohort. Effective segmentation requires data-driven marketing approaches to identify and serve different user personas appropriately.
How can blockchain integration avoid being perceived as a "money grab"?
Developers must demonstrate real player benefits: cross-game ownership, secure permissionless markets, and transparent economics. Integration should reduce friction, enhance engagement, and solve concrete player problems rather than prioritizing token launches or speculation. This requires implementing customer-centric development practices that prioritize user value over short-term revenue extraction.
What are the main technical and platform constraints for Web3 games on mobile?
Mobile app store rules (Apple/Google) and payment restrictions make selling crypto-based digital goods and direct crypto payments difficult. In-app trading and smooth onboarding are often constrained, creating friction for native Web3 features in mobile-first experiences. Developers need flexible automation solutions to navigate these platform-specific limitations while maintaining user experience quality.
Are grants and token incentives helping or hurting Web3 game development?
Grants can accelerate experimentation but also distort roadmaps when teams optimize for protocol incentives rather than product-market fit. This can create an illusion of progress focused on funding cycles and token speculation instead of sustainable game design. Teams should focus on sustainable business models that prioritize long-term user engagement over short-term funding milestones.
How has the developer "social contract" changed with Web3?
The burden of proof is on developers: they must show that blockchain features are useful, not just novel. Studios must prove decentralized mechanics improve fairness, resilience, and player value—otherwise they'll lose the narrative to skeptics. This shift requires evidence-based communication strategies to build trust and demonstrate tangible benefits to skeptical audiences.
Can studios keep shipping content while using immutable on-chain rules?
Yes. Studios can release content, balance gameplay, and launch expansions while encoding core economic rules (scarcity, minting) in immutable contracts. This preserves creative control over game design but prevents silent, unilateral monetary changes affecting player-owned value. Success requires sophisticated workflow automation to manage the complexity of hybrid on-chain/off-chain development processes.
How should monetization be redesigned to align studio and player incentives?
Design monetization so studio revenue grows with meaningful engagement rather than token volatility. Make earning a byproduct of playing (fun, mastery, creation) and ensure transparency so players understand how value is generated and preserved. This approach benefits from value-based pricing models that align revenue with actual user value creation rather than speculative mechanics.
What regulatory questions arise if a game's economy functions like a financial product?
If game economies behave like financial instruments—tradeable, scarce, and value-bearing—regulators may scrutinize them for securities, consumer protections, and systemic risk. Immutable rules reduce moral hazard but can also draw regulatory attention to the economic nature of the product. Studios need comprehensive compliance frameworks to navigate evolving regulatory landscapes while maintaining innovation capacity.
How will AI and blockchain combine to shape the future of games?
AI will enable personalized, procedurally generated content and faster development pipelines, while blockchain will serve as an infrastructure choice for ownership and economic guarantees. Together they can create highly personalized, persistent worlds where ownership and provenance are preserved across experiences. This convergence requires strategic AI implementation that complements rather than complicates blockchain integration efforts.
What practical questions should leaders ask when evaluating Web3 for their studio?
Key questions: Where does trust currently rely on "just believe us"? Which player segments genuinely benefit from on-chain ownership? Can monetization be aligned with engagement rather than token speculation? What centralized controls are hidden liabilities (reputational, regulatory, economic)? Leaders should leverage systematic evaluation frameworks to assess Web3 opportunities against traditional alternatives objectively.
What does success look like for Web3 elements in mainstream games?
Success is when Web3 runs in the background: rules are transparent and immutable where needed, players can exit with value, and the game still feels like the best Web2 experience. The defining studios will be those that make decentralized features invisible yet credible and beneficial. This requires mastering sophisticated technical integration while maintaining focus on core gaming experiences that players actually want.
No comments:
Post a Comment