I think you hit the nail on the head that blockchain doesn’t really provide value to an in-game video game marketplace other than trying to inflate IAP prices off NFT hype.

I think that blockchain could have a purpose in a marketplace for lending/trading/reselling digital licenses to games but developers/publishers don’t want that. They want everyone to purchase new licenses.

There are other use cases outside of video games where blockchain makes more sense but a lot of them are people trying to make money off bag holders

[–] Dark_Arc@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I think that blockchain could have a purpose in a marketplace for lending/trading/reselling digital licenses to games but developers/publishers don’t want that. They want everyone to purchase new licenses.

Even here, I think you'd really find that under technical scrutiny, this would be a much harder sell vs just having a federated license transfer system between Sony, Microsoft, and Valve. Making it a block chain doesn't really "add value".

[–] lemminer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Have you heard of P2E (Play to Earn) model?

[–] New_account@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

The play to earn model is literally a ponzi scheme with a fancier name. The money you earn has to come from somewhere. It doesn't appear out of thin air. In 100% of P2E games, the earliest players get paid by the revenue from later players. Eventually, the game stops growing, so the later players are left holding the bag.

Obviously, some people make a lot of money in ponzi schemes (most notably, the people that start the ponzi scheme in the first place), but it's a terrible design for people that aren't the ponzi creators or the first adopters lucky enough to get in on the ground floor.