It really doesn’t. Steam or other stores still have to cooperate ro implement the items on each of their stores to make them work on their platform and then have to honour what the NFT claims. That’s still very heavily replying on the platforms and they can still ban you or pull the item out form under you (and we can trivially see this by the fact that people have been selling things they don’t even own as NFTs).

For it to truly destroy the monopoly, the items that the NFTs represent would have to stand on their own, outside of any particular platform, implemented entirely in the NFT smart contract itself, but outside of the most trivial use cases (eg displaying an image) that’s not a technology that exists as platforms would have to at a minimum agree on a standard interface and functionality of items. Right now, it’s also held back by storage and transaction costs (although some blockchains are cheaper than others).

But even then, if there was a common item standard and you could use that to somehow implement cross platform (or cross game or whatever) items, any particular platform could still decide not to honour it or to ban you or whatever they want.

But why would any company want this? You’re giving away control of your projects for… what exactly?

Why would any company make a website instead of requiring people to install a native app where they have more control?

It does not. Whoever implements the NFT integration into whatever game you want to play is in COMPLETE control over your item. If they want to not let you use it, they can do that. If they want to turn it into a floppy penis because they think it's funny, there is zero cryptographic assurance the object wont be modified in any way between the blockchain and the GPU APIs that actually put it on screen.

NFTs "in games" is just laughable. It's a perfect microcosm of how crypto boosters NEVER know anything about what they are talking about, like even the most basic, first sentence of wikipedia things.

There is no system agnostic way to program videogame object behavior. Your NFT can pretend to have whatever functionality it wants, but it's up to the game dev to honor that. If your NFT is a jpeg that you want as a weapon skin, the game dev has to take that blockchain data and pull or parse the jpeg out of it, and there is NOTHING the blockchain can do to enforce that. There's NO cryptography protecting that jpeg after that moment.

And that's just the physical, technical implementation, completely ignoring that it won't get to that step because no game studio will ever care to build anything like that for any reason other than just to sell crypto coins on a marketplace for quick cash.

Or do you somehow actually think EA and Ubisoft and everyone put pay to win mechanics in their games because players are desperate to give them more cash?

It's also possible to make a browser game that uses the open protocols of the web, but target a certain user and instead of the game send them the floppy penis version of the game. In practice this doesn't happen. Game creators simply make games on top of these open platforms without the need to bully people.

>NFTs "in games" is just laughable

Microtransactions and in game economies already exist. Moving that economy to a blockchain is not laughable. If a developer doesn't want to spend development time working on features for the in game economy they can use the cryptocurrency ecosystem to accelerate their project.

>because no game studio will ever care to build anything like that for any reason other than just to sell crypto coins on a marketplace for quick cash.

If you think microtransactions are not a way for game studios to get quick cash you are misleading yourself.