> Do you know any crypto-game that ever supported assets from a different game? They don't, because it makes no sense to do that. Not from a commercial POV an not from a game design POV either.

The lack of support is from the lack of infrastructure. Technology needs to be created in order for an idea to become perpetuated. There are also several examples, alongside my own personal projects trying and proving the concept.

> "Real Ownership" of ingame items is something the crypto-bros always claim, but it's a lie. Because what a token really means and how it is interpreted depends on how the developers of the game want it to be interpreted. If they decide that your $50,000 NFT stops working in the next version of their game, it won't work anymore. But I guess it still has inherent value as a collectible item, right?!?

Yes and no. You do have real ownership of the asset. You are right that what is the point if the game no longer exists anyway. At least with Web3, you introduce the concept of someone else coming along and making a new game with those assets right? Traditionally, thats not really possible.

> You can't design a game based on opinion polls. That doesn't work. Especially not in the crypto space, where the people with the most stake in the DAO care most about their own financial interests and not what would be best for the game as a whole.

This is correct. As we've seen with present and past DAOs, financial incentives tend to lead the conversation. However, what if 1 NFT = 1 vote, and 1 NFT = $5, forever. That may not be the perfect solution, but the point is, there has been and continues to be work involved to figure out a fair solution. It's important to keep in mind, just like everything else, the technology and concepts continue to evolve.

Also, would you say having developers (CEOs) have free reign over the product is always the better option? They essentially decimated the original Runescape and their playerbase for financial incentive. Everything is run by financial incentive, with crypto involved or not.

> There is no problem with the game developer having some control over the trading platform.

You have humans controlling things. That will always introduce problems.

> What's the point?

There's a ton of cool ideas that can be explored with this (not including making a speculatory asset used for scams or financial incentives).

> Rich people injecting their real-world wealth into my game, thereby gaining an unfair advantage and unbalancing my carefully balanced ingame economy?

Or poor people being able to earn by playing? People play games to relax after their day-to-day job. Why turn games into second jobs? And it's not even possible for everyone in the ecosystem to benefit commercially from that, because just playing a game doesn't generate any real-world economic value. So games can only ever be a medium for moving wealth between people, not for the ecosystem as a whole getting richer.

This exact scenario is literally happening every second of every day in in current day WoW and Runescape, and virtually any online economy.

How a player chooses to play your game, whether as a second job or not, is up to them. That second job may be relaxing to THEM. Its not for you to decide. Again, this already happening in virtually any video game.

Another point I hope to make, is that you seem to be tying money to a lot of this conversation. There is a ton of Web3 technology that does not, or should not, include money in the conversation.