The Controversy of NFTs in Web3 Gaming: Ownership Does Not Equal Control
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
The Controversy of NFTs in Web3 Gaming: Ownership Does Not Equal Control
Web3 games have certain advantages, but also limitations.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: Vader Research
Compiled by: TechFlow
In reality, you don't truly "own" game NFTs.
It's commonly believed that blockchain enables ownership of in-game assets. In Web2 games, in-game assets exist within a centralized database, whereas in Web3 games, these assets permanently reside on a decentralized blockchain ledger. Below are the most debated arguments in Web3 gaming—let's examine each one.
Argument 1: If the game developer shuts down or gets hacked, you still own your NFT assets
First, an NFT is merely a receipt/proof verifying your ownership of an in-game asset. The visual representation of the game asset isn't stored on the blockchain but rather in the game’s centralized database. If the game shuts down, you only retain proof of ownership—not the visual asset itself.
Other game developers cannot freely allow you to use these items. They must obtain the necessary intellectual property rights. For example, a game can’t simply place Darth Vader in a level without facing legal action from Disney. Similarly, Web3 game developers need permission from the original game creators to use those in-game assets in their own games.
Even if Web3 game developers obtain such permission, there's no guarantee the asset will have the same utility in the new game. The visual design might also change to fit the new game's artistic style.
However, since it's publicly known that you own a specific in-game item, other Web3 games may offer you special rewards or customized gameplay experiences. This isn't about ownership—it's about data interoperability, which is a significant advantage of Web3 gaming.
Argument 2: Game developers cannot ban or nerf your NFT assets
Web3 game developers (or a DAO composed of token/NFT holders) can always nerf or buff NFT in-game assets. This could reduce the NFT’s value and cause its price to drop.
I believe adjusting asset power levels is essential for maintaining game balance and fun. Even certain NFT metadata can be modified by the issuer.
Web3 game developers can mint copies of the NFTs you own or release new collections, thereby diluting the value of your NFT assets. You still own your asset, but its market price will likely plummet.
Developers can also block certain NFTs from accessing the game—effectively equivalent to banning the asset.
Argument 3: NFT assets can be traded across multiple markets
This argument holds merit—you can trade on external markets instead of being locked into the game’s internal marketplace (like CS:GO on Steam), potentially securing better prices and lower trading fees.
However, things have changed with the NFT marketplace war between Blur and OpenSea. Web3 game developers will rightly implement custom NFT smart contracts to prevent players from trading on platforms that allow traders to bypass royalties.
Final Thoughts
Web3 gaming offers certain advantages, but it also has limitations. Overhyping the technology’s capabilities may deepen polarization between NFT critics and extreme NFT supporters. Acknowledging these limitations and weaknesses will help us attract more Web2 game developers and players.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
