93% of Web3 games have already failed.
Yet, some of the biggest funds in gaming still double down, chasing a future where “players aren’t just users, but owners.”
It’s a seductive idea. Who wouldn’t want to own their skins, swords, or characters and maybe even sell them? But when we look closely, the whole pitch starts to crack.
So what does real ownership look like in games? And why have legacy platforms like Steam and Blizzard done it better than most NFT experiments?
What Players Actually Want: Access Over Ownership
Web3’s loudest voices say players crave ownership. But the data, and behavior, suggest otherwise:
- Game Pass, Netflix, and Spotify thrive because people prefer access, convenience, and choice, not permanence.
- Digital fatigue is real. Most gamers don’t want to manage wallets, keys, or cryptographic assets. They want to click and play.
Ownership without usability isn’t power, it’s friction?
Ask a gamer if they’d rather:
- Own an NFT-backed sword they can trade on-chain (but have to bridge, gas, and list)
- Or use a rare CSGO skin instantly tradable on Steam
The answer isn’t ideological. It’s practical.
Read also: Mobile Games Earn More While Downloads Drop: What the Numbers Don’t Say
Ownership Already Exists. And It Works Without Crypto.
Forget NFTs. Real economies already live inside the games we play:
- CSGO: Weapon skins with real fiat value, backed by massive marketplaces.
- World of Warcraft: Gold, items, and the WoW Token system allowing legitimate trading.
- Runescape & Path of Exile: P2P markets, grey economies, tradable assets.
These systems don’t need wallets or tokens. They work because:
- The economies are tailored to the game loop
- Value comes from gameplay demand, not speculation
- Studios maintain balance and trust
CSGO players have more ownership agency than 99% of NFT holders. And they didn’t need a white paper to get there.
Why Studios Fear True Ownership (and They’re Right)
“Players should be able to resell everything” sounds good, until you realize:
- Most free-to-play economies are built on sunk cost fallacy and non-recoverable spend.
- Letting players withdraw value breaks this loop, collapsing retention and revenue.
Catalin Alexandru’s Game Economy Trilemma breaks it down:
- Players want value extraction
- Studios want retention and control
- Platforms want scalable monetization
You can’t optimize for all three.
That’s why Diablo’s Auction House failed and why Blizzard replaced it with WoW Tokens under tight control. It’s also why most Web3 games crash the moment player growth slows.
Web3 Made It Worse: Friction, Fragility, and Fiction
Crypto didn’t fix ownership, it introduced new problems:
- Wallets, tokens, bridges, fees
- Rampant speculation
- Projects built around pump mechanics, not play loops
And worst of all: centralized execution in most NFT games meant users weren’t even owners in practice.
Web3 promised true ownership but delivered worse custody, weaker economies, and less fun?
The result? Trust erosion. Fractured UX. Disillusioned players.
What a Better Future Could Look Like (No Buzzwords Required)
You don’t need crypto to build new economies, just better infrastructure and intent:
- Built-in player marketplaces (like Steam)
- Studio-backed trading systems (like WoW Tokens)
- Transparent game economies designed from the ground up to support value movement
- Optional portability but not forced decentralization
Imagine:
- A player can trade, gift, or resell their item
- Without touching a wallet, writing down seed phrases, or fearing a rug pull
- Because the platform respects their time as value, not just their spending
Personal Thoughts
Web3 wanted to give players ownership. But instead of utility, it sold them friction. Instead of freedom, it gave them volatility.
True digital ownership isn’t a coin or a chain. It’s a system that works for players, studios, and platforms alike.
So what do you think?
Is “player ownership” even the right goal, or is it time to focus on player agency instead?
