Durability sounds annoying in this design, but many systems are actually too reluctant to let things break.
Players in chain games are most instinctively repelled by a certain type of words, probably durability, wear and tear, and maintenance.
When you mention these, the first reaction is of course: here comes the hassle.
I can understand this discomfort, because everyone hopes that the things they have worked hard to create can always be valuable and useful. But the problem is that if everything in a world is always valuable and useful, it usually leads to bigger problems later.
That means demand will slowly disappear.
If old tools do not phase out, new ones will not sell.
If old facilities do not exit, maintenance will increasingly resemble mere decoration.
If old resources do not exit, all subsequent production will start to distort.
So I am now actually very concerned about Pixels bringing up durability. It is not pleasant, but it is very honest. Because it is equivalent to saying: this system no longer wants to treat 'no degradation' as the default premise.
This is actually very critical in management.
Without degradation, it is difficult for the economy to have metabolism.
Without metabolism, inventory will accumulate.
Once inventory accumulates, all upper-level consumption will gradually lose its foothold.
Many project issues come from this. In the early stages, it seems particularly friendly, players are also very comfortable, and can keep accumulating everything. But after a long time, with no place for resources, no need for restocking, and no motivation to replace, the entire system will increasingly resemble a warehouse that piles up old goods thicker and thicker.
Pixels makes me willing to continue watching this cut because it at least does not intend to keep pretending that 'it won't break, and that's okay.'
Of course, this kind of design is most afraid of going overboard. If it deteriorates too quickly, players will feel that you are forcing them to spend money; if it deteriorates too slowly, it won't create a stable demand. The hardest part is actually finding the right timing. You need to make players feel that this is a maintenance mechanism that breathes, rather than simply taking away their experience for no reason.
But no matter what, those who dare to touch this layer are at least willing to face the real issues.
Because the easiest thing for blockchain games to do is to keep giving new things while being afraid to let go of old things.
The exit mechanism is unappealing, yet it is the closest to reality.
And many long-term systems actually rely on these unappealing things to avoid being dragged down by their own old inventory.
So durability, in my eyes, is far more than just a small number.
It is actually asking: is this project willing to acknowledge that things will get old, the world also needs metabolism, and $PIXEL must stand on this metabolism.