The gaming world has been at a crossroads for a long time. The success of video games is measured by two main metrics: the depth of the story and the quality of the graphics. However, in the age of decentralized technology and ubiquitous mobile phones, these traditional fundamentals are being challenged and expanded. This conflict is the main topic of the BeInCrypto seminar titled 'Traditional Studios vs. Blockchain: Can a Common Ground Be Found?'
The discussion was led by Alevtina Labyuk, the Chief Strategic Partnerships Officer at BeInCrypto. This discussion brought together key figures in the industry: Mark Rydon, co-founder of Aethir, and Inal Kardan, director of gaming at TON Foundation. What was the consensus? Blockchain does not replace the fundamentals of gaming but expands possibilities if developers can prove its value to a discerning audience.
The evolution of success metrics in gaming.
Alevtina Labyuk opened the discussion by addressing the slow fundamental changes in the industry. She said, 'I had gaming experiences 15 years ago, but things haven't changed much in traditional gaming. The two key factors for game success are story and graphics. But with the rise of blockchain and mobile, new factors are emerging.'
This development means that current success is not solely about cinematic experiences. It also involves user context, economic participation, and digital ownership. However, the seminar panel remained unanimous on one key point that anchored the discussion in reality: casual players remain apathetic towards the underlying technology.
95% of the problem: happiness, fun, and apathy.
While Web3 enthusiasts often extol the benefits of decentralization, speakers emphasized that most players do not care about the blockchain layer; they play for the genuine enjoyment.
Inal Kardan affirmed that generally, he agrees that players do not really want blockchain. 95% of players do not care about blockchain; they care about nothing else. They think only about the game. They play games for fun.
This perspective is crucial. It means that successful blockchain integration should not be overt or, at the very least, must be an enhancement of the enjoyable experience. Technology cannot be the main selling point.
Kardan provided a powerful example of a situation where this apathy was broken: when security and ownership became paramount.
He cited the Telegram ecosystem, where millions use simple digital gifts, but niche groups with high expertise use smart contracts to secure and trade these resources to verify their scarcity and provenance.
Kardan confirmed that there are cases where users will care about blockchain to ensure their assets are secure.
For the group of users with economic participation, transparency and security transition from being a feature to a necessary demand. This shows a crucial depth of nuance: Blockchain is not necessary for everyone, but it matters for users seeking transparency and security regarding digital goods.
The risks of centralization: The 3 billion USD lesson from CS:GO.
The most credible argument for using blockchain as a superior underlying system for the ownership of digital goods lies in its immutable and transparent regulations. Mark Rydon presented real-world case studies that demonstrate how traditional centralized systems have failed their user bases, such as the CS:GO skins market.
The CS:GO skin trading system has grown into a large market valued at approximately 6 billion USD, with clear rarity levels. However, as a centralized system, the rules are ultimately controlled by Valve, the game developer.
Rydon reported on a recent event:
The CS:GO skin market... The rarity of these skins was defined a few days before Valve changed the rules. They allowed users below gold rank to burn red skins to achieve gold rank, which reduced the rarity of gold. The market value dropped to 3 billion USD because everyone could turn red skins into gold overnight. People lost a lot of money.
This event perfectly reflects the real risks of a centralized economy where a single regulator can change the terms of ownership overnight and invalidate the value created by millions of users.
Rydon emphasized the key difference that what is impossible in changing the rules will not happen in the NFT class.
In the blockchain system, the rules governing the scarcity of assets, trading, and creation will be recorded in immutable smart contracts. Although central authorities can still update the game, they cannot alter the scarcity or rights predetermined by users on blockchain assets. This predictability creates trust and retains value in a decentralized economy.
The problem of commitment: Talkers vs. Creators.
The conversation then shifted to major studios. Alevtina Labyuk presented on the attempts of prominent players like Sega and Ubisoft to enter that segment of blockchain. The question raised was how these giants would integrate blockchain without sacrificing the centralized control they currently have.
Inal Kardan remains highly skeptical about the sincerity of many traditional studios' efforts.
Most of them just talk. They jump from one blockchain to another merely to seek grants, not the way games are built, Kardan continued.
For these major companies, it is difficult to make comparisons because some want to create, while others merely want to talk.
This skepticism points to a fundamental misalignment of incentives. Many traditional entities and new projects are looking to profit from protocols rather than finding compatibility between products and the real market that benefits players.
Kardan concluded that:
Mostly it's about taking money from the protocol. They just look at which protocol they will profit more from.
The focus on short-term cash grabs instead of long-term product development has led to Web3 gaming being viewed as speculation rather than innovation.
The developer's responsibility: Proving real-world use cases
The group of discussants agreed that ultimately, it is the developer's duty to demonstrate value. Mark Rydon placed the responsibility on the shoulders of the innovators.
Rydon stated:
It is indeed now the developers' duty to find truly robust case studies. Something like GTA 6 might be an example that could bring the value and use cases of blockchain to light in the context of gaming. However, the primary duty remains convincing gamers that this is not just about making money but a genuinely useful feature.
Integration with blockchain must solve real problems for players, not just for developers or protocols. Without real and attractive use cases, such as genuine cross-game ownership, secure exchanges, or transparent economic mechanisms, Web3 gaming may be seen as a speculative value-seeking endeavor rather than a technological leap.
Practical obstacles and issues of control.
Inal Kardan also spoke about practical stumbling blocks that continue to limit general awareness. Even though Web3 technology has advanced, technical and policy hurdles remain, especially in the mobile ecosystem.
Platform limitations: Telegram mini-apps and similar platforms cannot easily sell digital goods through established systems like Apple and Google.
Payment obstacles: Direct crypto payments are often unsupported.
Trading limitations: Trading digital goods within mini-apps is still cumbersome or prohibited, making it challenging for average users to get started.
These stumbling blocks highlight the core problem of the group: Why would Web2 studios relinquish control? If traditional studios control the platforms, the distribution, the economy, and the player base, the incentive to decentralize and relinquish control over monetization and rule changes will inherently be low.
Kardan concluded with a warning about the imbalanced economic model: When ninety percent of people in games are merely there to make money, the system will not be sustainable. A good and sustainable model must rely on a balanced mix of incentives: fun, competition, creativity, and economic participation.
Predictions and building shared security.
The meeting concluded with predictions for the future.
Mark Rydon predicts that AI-generated game content will significantly change, with deeper player customization and highly automated creation pipelines.
Inal Kardan believes that while AI will dominate the overall gaming industry, blockchain will be one of the income streams for mainstream developers.
The final conclusion is clear: Blockchain is not a replacement for good games, but a technology that expands the boundaries of ownership and economic participation.
However, until protocols stop focusing on distributing funding, traditional studios will remain committed to true decentralization, and developers will prioritize creating real value that earns players' trust. The space between traditional games and blockchain will remain desirable, not a reality. Innovation depends on teams willing to demonstrate that blockchain is not just an opportunity for speculation, but an invisible and useful feature that enhances the enjoyment of games.
