Items are inherently centralized and cannot be decentralized because games can choose to stop supporting them.
Yes. So what? That's already possible without crypto. The game developer decides which player owns what items, and they can charge for item transfers if they want to.
> Players happily pay the price.
This has nothing to do with what I said, and I didn't dispute it. Digital assets are valuable (and have been for decades), and players certainly are happy to pay for them.
> It's the perfect counterexample to your claim that players rage against taxing digital assets on each transaction.
Counterexample != data. Most players don't want crypto in their games. A few players who tolerate it don't mean anything.
But really, I've conflated two points I was making, which is my bad.
Point 1: Crypto adds nothing to digital assets in gaming. They are inherently centralized and can't be decentralized.
Point 2: Games like Axie Infinity, where the gameplay is terrible and serves only as a thin veneer over a speculative market, are not something gamers want. They only serve the creators.
> When you can't see something so blatantly obvious
If it's obvious, why can't you make an argument beyond, "People buy digital assets"?
What value does crypto add?
What are some games that people would not play if they weren't crypto-enabled?
As a player, what benefit does crypto provide me? How does it make the game better or more fun?
What's the difference? I'm not asking about the technology, I'm asking about the user experience.
that’s exactly the point. this adds nothing new or interesting for any party involved (except the scammer and their marketing people)
Sure, but web3 gives you access to a giant ecosystem that you can just plug right in to. You can safely create trades including items from multiple games. To say that this ecosystem adds 0 value to me is a stretch.
It seems like I would focus on creating items myself and selling them to players, since I can't profit from them otherwise.
Unless there is an after sales market I (and anybody else) am incentiviced to reduce the inflow of external NFTs as much as possible.
If I'm developing a game that has value by itself (aka is fun) it's very unlikely that players would put enough pressure on me to care (they could do that now without crypto but so far it didn't happen. Would be much easier and cheaper to implement).
If players are in it for the financial gain, I'm not really developing a game after all.
I never suggested you had to. Other websites could upstart support handling items from different games so you can focus your development resources on building the game and not on building a trading ecosystem.
>It seems like I would focus on creating items myself and selling them to players
You would be the only one able to mint new items. You can sell new items to players.
>If players are in it for the financial gain, I'm not really developing a game after all.
Wanting to have something that emulates physical ownership closer is not really being in it for financial gain. It's much better for players if they can sell all of their skins to some other player when they are done with the game instead of having a ton of expensive items locked up into their account.