In the realm of blockchain gaming, few concepts have been as hyped and heralded as digital asset ownership. The notion that players could truly own, trade, and monetize their in-game assets was seen as a groundbreaking shift, poised to revolutionize the gaming industry. Yet, as the space has evolved, a curious paradox has emerged – the very feature that was supposed to define blockchain games has become a significant barrier to adoption.
The Ownership Paradox
Year after year, surveys of blockchain gaming professionals consistently rank digital asset ownership as the number one benefit that blockchain brings to gaming. In the 2024 edition, a resounding 71.1% placed it at the top. Clearly, the industry sees this as its undisputed North Star.
However, the reality on the ground tells a different story. Most blockchain games today are free-to-play, with no requirement for asset ownership. The much-hyped promises that hinge on digital property rights remain largely unrealized. It’s a curious bind – the best proposition for gamers is the same thing developers are making excuses for.
The Evolution of Asset Ownership in Blockchain Games
To understand this paradox, we need to look at how the role of digital asset ownership has shifted over time:
- Early Days: Pioneering blockchain games like Axie Infinity required upfront NFT purchases to play. Digital assets were yield-generating investments.
- Rental Era: High entry costs led to player-driven workarounds like NFT rental markets. While innovative, this created an onboarding bottleneck.
- Free-to-Play: By 2022, most games embraced the free-to-play model to lower barriers. Blockchain features became optional enhancements rather than prerequisites.
This pivot was driven by pressures to focus less on financialization and more on fun, to attract traditional gamers unlikely to jump through web3 hoops. But it raises the question:
How much blockchain can a blockchain game omit, before it’s no longer a game on the blockchain?
Decoupling Web3 from Gaming Experiences
Developers’ half-hearted embrace of on-chain experiences means that potentially transformative web3 innovations, like cross-game interoperability, remain theoretical. Some progress has been made, like enabling NFT profile pictures as playable avatars, but this mostly caters to existing web3 communities rather than offering a compelling hook for the web2 gaming masses.
For most players, the “web3 part” is hidden, optional, and about as impactful as a cereal box prize. The notion of “ownership” in web3 is vastly overhyped and largely unsupported by product-market fit. Even if you “own” an NFT, its utility and value often depend entirely on the developers’ centralized infrastructure. Web3 offers increased agency over assets, but not the “true ownership” that’s often claimed.
Glimmers of Hope
That said, there have been some promising experiments with fully on-chain games and composable NFT projects like Loot. Recent innovations like tokenized accounts (ERC-6551), account abstraction (ERC-4337), hybrid tokens (ERC-414), and soulbound tokens empower players to unlock experiences that showcase the unique potential of digital property rights.
The enduring appeal of digital asset ownership in industry surveys confirms that the desire for player agency, control, and value remains strong. The challenge now is to let players experience the fun first and discover the benefits of ownership organically, without compromising the web3 ethos that makes blockchain gaming special in the first place.
If we want others to get onboard with our vision, we need to develop experiences that demonstrate the advantages of digital asset ownership from the get-go. Otherwise, we’re not doing anything very revolutionary at all.
