Rebellion Without a Clear Cause

It is not secret that that gaming community is largely opposed to NFTs invading their beloved safe spaces. On the surface, this issue might seem trivial, but in reality, the video gaming industry stands to be among the top beneficiaries from blockchain technology, not for the developers and publishers, but for the gamers.

Where it all began

If you go and ask a gamer about their favorite era of gaming, chances are that their answer will start with “back in the good old days.” While nostalgia might be at play, there is still some truth to what they are saying. In order to understand the gaming community’s hatred towards NFTs, you have to understand the evolution of gaming.

The Golden Age

Back in the good old days, video games were a single product. In other words, a person wishing to play a certain game would go buy a physical copy, and that’s it, they would own the game, have access to all of its content, and play it until completion.

The Shadow of the Digital Age

With all of the conveniences of the internet, it has had a significant impact on the video game industry. Gamers no longer needed to que up in line 2 days prior to a title’s release, and they could pay for and download the game from the comfort of their own homes. However, game publishers saw an immense opportunity. They now had the option to release additional content for the same title and roll out an update that gamers would instantly get. In theory, that was great! Gamers would constantly get an update to their favorite titles, and it would prolong the longevity of many video games. With that said, why would developers be satisfied with being paid only once for a title? Short answer; they weren’t. This is where paid downloadable content (DLC) comes into play.

DLCs enabled game developers to patch their games with additional content, and having them locked behind a pay-wall is not necessarily a malicious practice on its own. Indeed, if the DLC enriches the game experience, the majority of users would not mind it. An example of DLCs done right is the roguelike title Dead Cells, developed by Motion Twin studios, each paid DLC delivers new zones, maps, cosmetics, and even weapons that are unique and significantly expand upon the game. As a result, their community is overwhelmingly positive about this practice, and their DLCs are constantly well-received.

On the other end of the spectrum, some publishers saw DLCs as a chance to siphon their player base’s finances without giving them anything worthwhile in return. Let us illustrate that; imagine a person paying USD $60 for a title, which is the most common price for AAA games, after investing about 30-35 hours into the game, they near the end-point, but instead of being faced with the final boss, a message pops up telling them that they have to pay an additional USD $20 to unlock the ending. It is understandable then that this user would be frustrated and might take to online platforms to express his discontent with that situation. Other gamers might be equally as upset when they have to pay an additional USD $15-20 to unlock an extra character in a fighting game.

As you can see, the issue does not lie in the concept of DLCs, but rather, in their execution.

A New Plague

In addition to paid DLCs, paid expansions, and initial purchase price, most if not all modern games include an in-game shop where players can spend real life money to acquire in-game items. Whether these items give an advantage or not is up to the game developers, but when they do, this is known as “pay-to-win.” Needless to say, this has caused an astronomical uproar in the gaming community, especially when it comes to paid games. Free-to-play games weren’t criticized as harshly due to the lack of initial purchase price and the community’s understanding that developers do need to get paid somehow.

Take World of Warcraft, one of the biggest MMORPGs in history, in order to play it, the user needs to purchase each expansion for USD $60 and pay a monthly USD $15 fee. In addition to this costly investment, Blizzard Entertainment has implemented an in-game shop that sells unique mounts for real life money with no way of obtaining them through in-game means. These microtransactions as they came to be known are widely regarded as malicious practice, and publishers that employ so many monetization mediums tend to develop a negative reputation.

The Modern Slot Machines

One of the most despised systems to ever be implemented in video games is loot boxes. Essentially, the publishers would release a great-looking and unique skin or item, but rather than giving players the options to either unlock it through in-game means or buy it directly from shops, they’d place it inside of a box, and players who desire it would have to try their luck by opening that box. In other words, it is a lottery, the ticket is the loot box, and the ultimate reward, more often than not, has an abysmal drop rate.

This system’s main criticism is its association with gambling. Indeed, players would pay real money to roll the dice in hopes of being rewarded with the item that they most desire. Most publishers justify that practice by saying that it is not gambling simply because the reward is never monetary gain.

Counter-Strike’s loot box system begs to differ though. Some items contained in their boxes can sell for upwards of USD $5000. So, the general consensus of loot boxes is gambling aimed at children, and needless to say, this is pretty bad, so bad actually that many governments around the world are considering passing legislation to ban loot boxes from being distributed to kids under the age of 18.

A New Hope

So far, we have covered the evolution of gaming and the way it is monetized. The parallel between current practices and NFTs should be clear, but let us elaborate. In this day and age, it is expected of video games to contain some form of microtransactions, but what most gamers fail to realize is that NFTs have been part of their favorite video games for ages now, they were simply present under different names.

It is highly common for players to engage in the illegal trade (according to most games’ TOS) of valuable items, and the seller as well as the buyer are risking their account’s termination. If the in-game assets were to be turned into NFTs, then users would be able to trade them at will without worrying about consequences.

Furthermore, the promises of interoperability are still far from becoming reality, at least, when it comes to making skins or items work across multiple games. In other words, using a weapon from the Tom Clancy’s series in Counter-Strike isn’t truly achievable with the current coding infrastructure. However, when we consider the same universe, it becomes more viable. Let us discuss one of the most successful sport games; FIFA. A new FIFA installment is released on a yearly basis each bringing with it a new range of cosmetics, player packs, and other customization options. If those items were to be turned into NFTs, it would then be easy to transfer them from generation to generation, reinforcing their value and making them truly timeless.

Additionally, most skill-based games publishers justify the existence of the cash store by stating that the items up for sale would be purely cosmetic, so the argument of “making these skins locked behind pay walls” if they were turned into NFTs doesn’t hold much weight as it already is the case.

Rerouting Anger

All in all, microtransactions have cemented their place in the gaming industry, and gamers do not and should not expect to see them depart any time soon. Having items in the form of NFTs is actually beneficial for the player-base as it would give them ownership over their assets, and it would grant them the freedom to trade those assets. The only real problem that remains is their implementation. Indeed, the publisher should be trusted to not engage in malicious practice when implementing NFTs, such as locking a portion of the game based on NFT ownership or similar practices. As a result, gamers shouldn’t view NFTs as enemies here to destroy what they hold dear, but rather as an opportunity to take true control of their in-game assets, and their anger should be targeted at gaming studios in an attempt to pressure them to implement them with good-faith in mind.?