Do NFTs Really Benefit Gamers or Just Game Developers?

Key Takeaways

• NFTs promise true ownership of in-game assets for players, but concerns arise over whether they genuinely enhance the gaming experience or primarily serve developers’ profits.
• While blockchain games have allowed players to profit from digital assets, high transaction fees and speculative trading risk overshadowing gameplay and accessibility.
• NFTs in gaming should avoid exploitative monetization models that alienate the gaming community.

With the NFT market projected to skyrocket to over $231 billion by 2030, largely fueled by gaming, one cannot help but wonder: Are gamers genuinely reaping the benefits of this digital gold rush, or are they unwitting pawns in a revenue-centric economy?

The promise of Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) in gaming is simple: true ownership of in-game assets, where a player’s sword, skin, or character can hold real-world value.

But do these digital assets genuinely enrich the player experience, or are they just another cash flow for developers?

Decentralized Ownership and Control for Gamers

At the core of NFTs in gaming is the idea of true digital ownership. In traditional games, in-game assets—skins, weapons, or characters—are owned by the developers, and players merely use them under license.

A prominent example of traditional gaming is the case of Blizzard’s game — World of Warcraft (WoW). In WoW, players could spend countless hours earning in-game items, gear, and collectibles, but they had no real ownership over them.

Big corporate companies like Blizzard maintain full control of the in-game assets, and players can’t sell, trade, or transfer these items outside of the game.

Thousands of players invested time and effort into the server, only to lose access to everything when Blizzard issued a cease-and-desist order.

This demonstrated the limitations of centralized control—players invested their time, but Blizzard ultimately held all ownership rights, leaving the community with nothing when the server was shut down.

The 2021 NFT Boom

In 2021, the NFT market boomed, with over $3.4 billion in sales from in-game items alone due to high-profile sales, blockchain-based games like Axie Infinity, and art platforms like OpenSea and SuperRare.

Celebrities and brands also jumped on board, increasing visibility. Major sales, such as Beeple’s $69 million NFT auction and the emergence of metaverse platforms like Decentraland, all contributed to this explosive growth.

Games like Axie Infinity demonstrated how NFTs could give players financial incentives, with some users earning up to $1,500 a month by selling their Axie characters.

Similarly, The Sandbox generated over $350 million in virtual land sales, turning NFTs into not just gameplay elements but valuable, tradeable assets with real-world worth.

This gaming economy allowed players to capitalize on their time and effort, turning digital collectibles into financial investments.

Players can earn by selling their in-game items or trading them in secondary markets. These NFTs can also have intrinsic value outside the game, making them a hybrid between a virtual asset and a financial investment.

Developer-Centric Monetization

For developers, NFTs can be seen as a new monetization strategy—generating recurring revenue from secondary sales through smart contracts that allocate a percentage of each sale back to the original developer.

Through smart contracts, developers can take a cut of every secondary market sale, typically ranging from 4-5% in royalties.

For example, Axie Infinity generated $1.3 billion in revenue by mid-2021, with developers collecting royalties on every transaction. This constant revenue stream contrasts sharply with traditional game sales or DLC, where payments are one-time.

This system, however, can push financial burdens onto players. Instead of enhancing the gaming experience, developers might focus on maximizing profits through NFT sales, leading to inflated asset prices and gas fees that price out casual players.

One notorious example is Pixelmon, which raised $70 million through NFT sales, only for players to later discover that the promised game was nowhere near the quality expected—a classic rug pull scenario.

Another example is the game Evolved Apes, where the anonymous developer vanished after raising 798 ETH (approximately $2.7 million at the time), leaving players with worthless NFTs and shattered promises.

Gamer Dissatisfaction

Players also report dissatisfaction due to the high costs of NFT-based games. For instance, during Ethereum’s gas fee surge in 2021, transactions for in-game NFT assets could cost over $100, leaving players frustrated.

If a gaming asset is worth $10, but the gas fee to transfer it is $50, it’s simply not worth it for most players.

This also creates a gaming ecosystem where progress may rely more on financial capability than skill, potentially harming player experience and fun.

Of course, there is a high barrier to entry for a significant portion of the player base, creating a divide between those who can afford to participate and those who cannot.

Moreover, by turning games into investment platforms, there is a risk that gaming will become more about profit than fun. Players may feel pressured to view their in-game assets as financial assets, leading to a more competitive, cutthroat environment.

A survey by the Blockchain Game Alliance in 2022 found that 58% of players felt that NFT integration did not enhance their gaming experience and was more of a financial burden.

Fad or the Future of Gaming?

A crucial question is whether NFTs will endure in gaming or if they are merely a passing trend. While early adopters have embraced NFT gaming, much of the gaming community remains skeptical.

Many gamers view NFTs as unnecessary additions, fearing that they could erode the spirit of gaming by turning entertainment into a transactional experience. 

For example, Ubisoft Quartz, Ubisoft’s NFT initiative, faced heavy backlash from the gaming community. Many players saw it as a blatant cash grab, prompting Ubisoft to pause its NFT plans.

This reflects a deeper issue: while blockchain enthusiasts see NFTs as a breakthrough, traditional gamers may feel NFTs are simply a monetization tool wrapped in hype.

Other classes of players are buying digital assets with the hope of appreciation, which resembles speculative trading more than traditional gaming. 

So, where does this leave us? Is there a middle ground to be found?

The truth is that successful games are built on some core principles. The first principles should always focus on innovation, engaging storytelling and lore, community engagement, game design, and accessibility.

NFTs are an element of community engagement but should not overpower the other important elements; rather, they should find the right balance. Developers must ensure that NFTs enhance, rather than exploit, player experiences.

NFTs undoubtedly offer new opportunities for both gamers and developers, but whether they benefit one group more than the other depends on how the technology is implemented.

Developers who prioritize long-term player engagement and avoid purely profit-driven models could unlock genuine value through NFTs. However, if NFTs are used solely to inflate revenue streams, they could alienate players and harm the industry’s reputation.

The Future of NFTs

Will the gaming industry harness NFTs to create enriching experiences, or will it succumb to the lure of easy profits at the expense of its community?

The answer to whether NFTs truly benefit gamers or developers isn’t straightforward. The potential for genuine player ownership and decentralized economies is real, but so is the possibility of exploitation through unchecked monetization. 

As NFTs continue to carve out their place in the gaming world, both players and developers must navigate this terrain thoughtfully. The future of gaming should empower players, not just pad profit margins.

The ultimate winner in this space is yet to be determined.