The gaming world stands at a crossroads. For years, the success of a video game was measured by two core metrics: the depth of the story and the quality of the graphics. But in the era of decentralized technology and the ubiquitous mobile phone, these traditional foundations are being challenged and further expanded. This tension was the central topic of the BeInCrypto panel, "Traditional studios vs. blockchain: can there be common ground?"
Led by Alevtina Labyuk, Chief Strategic Partnerships Officer at BeInCrypto, the discussion brought together heavyweights from the industry: Mark Rydon, co-founder of Aethir, and Inal Kardan, Director of Gaming at TON Foundation. The consensus? Blockchain is not there to replace the core principles of gaming, but to expand what is possible if developers can prove their value to a skeptical audience.
The evolution of gaming success metrics
Alevtina Labyuk opened the discussion by reflecting on the slow pace of fundamental changes in the industry. “Actually, I also have 15 years of experience in gaming, but not much has changed in traditional gaming. The two main success factors of a game were the story and the graphics. But with the growth of blockchain and mobile phones, new factors come into play.”
This evolution means that success today is not just about the cinematic experience; it is increasingly about user engagement, economic participation, and digital ownership. However, the panel was unanimous on one crucial point that anchors the discussion in reality: the average player is profoundly indifferent to the underlying technology.
The 95% problem: joy, fun, and indifference
Although Web3 enthusiasts often tout the benefits of decentralization, the speakers emphasized that the majority of players simply do not care about the blockchain layer. They play for inherent fun.
“In general, I agree that players do not need blockchain. In fact, 95% of players do not care about blockchain, they do not care about anything, they only think about the game itself, they play games for fun, for enjoyment,” stated Inal Kardan.
This perspective is crucial. It implies that any successful integration of blockchain must be invisible or, at least, purely supplementary to the gaming experience. The technology cannot be the main selling point.
Kardan provided a powerful example of where that indifference breaks down: when security and ownership become relevant.
He pointed to the Telegram ecosystem, where millions use simple digital gifts, while a smaller, highly engaged segment uses smart contracts to secure and trade these assets, ensuring their scarcity and provenance.
“There are cases where users will care about blockchain because of the assurance that their assets are safe,” confirmed Kardan.
For this active, economically participating user group, transparency and safety of a niche function transform into a mandatory requirement. This highlights an important nuance: blockchain is not necessary for everyone, but it is meaningful for users who want transparency and safety around digital items.
The centralization risk: the $3 billion lesson from CS:GO
The most compelling argument for blockchain as a superior underlying system for digital asset ownership rests on immutable, transparent rules. Mark Rydon provided a powerful practical example to illustrate how traditional centralized systems fail their user bases: the CS:GO skins market.
The trading ecosystem for CS:GO skins had grown into a huge market, valued at around $6 billion, with defined tiers of rarity. However, as a centralized ecosystem, the rules were ultimately controlled by Valve, the game's developer.
Rydon describes the recent incident:
“The CS:GO skins market… they defined the rarity of these skins. A few days ago, Valve came out and changed the rules. They allowed users below the gold tier to burn red skins to achieve the gold tier, which caused the gold rarity to crash. The market value was reduced to $3 billion because everyone could change from red to gold. People lost millions.”
This incident perfectly summarizes the inherent risk of a centralized economy. A single authority can change the terms of ownership overnight, wiping out millions of user-generated value.
Rydon emphasized the fundamental difference: “That impossibility to change the rules would not be possible in an NFT class.”
In a blockchain system, the rules that govern asset scarcity, exchange, and minting are established in an immutable smart contract. While a centralized authority can still update a game, it cannot unilaterally change the pre-defined scarcity or rights associated with an on-chain asset of a user. This predictability is what creates trust and retains value in decentralized economies.
The commitment problem: talkers versus builders
The discussion then shifted to the large studios. Alevtina Labyuk mentioned the attempts of established players like Sega and Ubisoft to penetrate the blockchain segment. The question raised was: how will these giants integrate blockchain without fundamentally sacrificing the centralized management they currently enjoy?
Inal Kardan remained very skeptical about the sincerity of the efforts of many traditional studios.
“Most of them are just talking. They jump from one blockchain to another in search of subsidies. This is not how games are built,” noted Kardan. He continued:
“It's difficult to compare these large companies because some of them want to build, and others just want to talk.”
This skepticism points to a fundamental misalignment of incentives. According to Kardan, many traditional entities and even new projects optimize for extracting funds from protocols rather than finding a real product-market fit that benefits players.
Kardan sums it up:
“The majority is about extracting money from the protocols rather than finding a product-market fit. They are only looking at which protocols they can extract more money from.”
This focus on short-term financial extraction over long-term product development risks reinforcing the image of Web3 gaming as speculative rather than innovative.
Developer responsibility: proving real use cases
The panel agreed that the responsibility ultimately lies with the developers to demonstrate value. Mark Rydon placed the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the innovators.
Rydon stated:
“It is now really up to the developers to find a solid use case. Something like GTA 6 is likely an example that will bring forth the value and use cases of blockchain in the gaming context, but it is up to them to convince gamers that this is not just about money, but truly a useful feature.”
Blockchain integration must solve a real problem for the player, not just for the developer or the protocol. Without a truly compelling use case—such as true cross-game ownership, secure trading, or transparent economic mechanisms—Web3 gaming risks being seen as a continuous quest for speculative value rather than a technological advancement.
Practical obstacles and the question of control
Inal Kardan also spoke about the practical pain points that still limit mass adoption, even with advances in Web3 technology. Technical and policy hurdles remain, especially within mobile ecosystems:
Platform restrictions: Telegram mini-apps and similar platforms cannot easily sell digital goods through established ecosystems like Apple and Google.
Payment barriers: Direct crypto payments are often not supported.
Trading restrictions: Trading digital goods within mini-apps is still cumbersome or prohibited, hindering smooth onboarding for everyday users.
These pain points underline one of the core issues of the panel: why would Web2 studios give up control? If a traditional studio manages its platform, distribution, economy, and player base, the motivation to decentralize and thus give up control over monetization and rule changes is inherently low.
Kardan finally warned against imbalanced economic models: “When ninety percent of the people in a game are only there to make money, the system is not sustainable.” A healthy and sustainable model relies on a balanced mix of motivations: fun, competition, creativity, and economic participation.
Expectations and the strengthening of common ground
The panel concluded with expectations for the future.
Mark Rydon expects a strong shift towards AI-generated game content, deeper player customizations, and highly automated creative pipelines.
Inal Kardan believes that while AI will dominate the gaming industry as a whole, blockchain will stabilize and remain one of the many monetization options for mainstream developers.
The final conclusion was clear. Blockchain is not a replacement for good games; it is a technology that broadens the possibilities for ownership and economic participation.
However, until protocols stop pursuing subsidy distribution, legacy studios commit to true decentralization, and developers prioritize building real value that earns players' trust, the common ground between traditional games and blockchain will remain an aspiration, not a reality. Innovation depends on teams willing to show that blockchain is not just an opportunity for speculation, but a useful, invisible feature that enhances the joy and fun of the game.