Traditional Studios Vs. Blockchain: Can There Be Common Ground?

What Happened

Moderated by Alevtina Labyuk, Chief Strategic Partnerships Officer at BeInCrypto, the discussion brought together industry heavyweights: Mark Rydon, Co-Founder of Aethir, and Inal Kardan, Director of Gaming at TON Foundation. The consensus? Blockchain isn’t here to replace core gaming fundamentals, but to expand what is possible if developers can prove its worth to a skeptical audience.

Market Context

The most compelling argument for blockchain as a superior underlying system for digital asset ownership rests on unalterable, transparent rules. Mark Rydon provided a potent, real-world case study 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 massive market, valued at approximately $6 billion, with defined tiers of rarity. As a centralized ecosystem, however, the rules were ultimately controlled by Valve, the game’s developer.

“The CS:GO skins market… they have defined 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 obtain gold tier, which caused gold rarity to dump. The market cap was dumped to $3 billion because everyone could make red into gold overnight. People lost millions.”

This incident perfectly encapsulates the inherent risk of a centralized economy. A single authority can change the conditions of ownership overnight, wiping out millions in user-generated value.

Why It Matters

The Centralization Risk: The $3 Billion Lesson from CS:GO

Details

The gaming world is at a crossroads. For decades, the success of a video game has been measured by two core metrics, the depth of its storyline and the quality of its graphics. Yet, in the era of decentralized technology and the ubiquitous mobile phone, these traditional fundamentals are being challenged and expanded upon. This tension was the core subject of the BeInCrypto panel, “Traditional Studios vs. Blockchain: Can There Be Common Ground?”

The Evolution of Gaming Success Metrics

Alevtina Labyuk opened the conversation by reflecting on the industry’s slow pace of fundamental change. “Actually, I also have kind of an experience in gaming 15 years ago, but things didn’t change much in traditional gaming. The two key factors of success of a game were the story line and the graphics. But with the growth of blockchain and mobile phones, the new factors are coming in.”

This evolution means success today isn’t just about the cinematic experience; it’s increasingly about user agency, economic participation, and digital ownership. However, the panel was unanimous on one crucial point that grounds the discussion in reality: the average player remains deeply indifferent to the underlying technology.

The 95% Problem: Joy, Fun, and Indifference

While Web3 enthusiasts often tout the benefits of decentralization, the speakers stressed that the majority of players simply don’t care about the blockchain layer. They play for inherent enjoyment.

“In general, I do agree that players, they don’t need blockchain. Actually, 95% of players don’t care about blockchain, they don’t care of anything, they just think about game itself, they play games for joy, for fun,” stated Inal Kardan.

This perspective is critical. It implies that any successful integration of blockchain must be invisible or, at the very least, purely additive to the fun experience. The technology cannot be the primary selling point.

Kardan, however, offered 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, yet a smaller, highly engaged segment leverages smart contracts to secure and trade these assets, ensuring their scarcity and provenance.

“There are cases where users will care about blockchain, to be sure their assets are secure,” Kardan confirmed.

For this active, economically participating user base, transparency and security transform from a niche feature into a mandatory requirement. This highlights a key nuance: blockchain is not necessary for everyone, but it is meaningful for users who want transparency and security around digital items.

Rydon detailed the recent incident:

Rydon emphasized the core difference: “That impossibility to change the rules would not be possible in an NFT class.”

In a blockchain system, the rules governing asset scarcity, exchange, and minting are recorded in an immutable smart contract. While a centralized authority can still update a game, it cannot unilaterally alter the pre-defined scarcity or rights associated with a user’s on-chain asset. This predictability is what creates trust and sustains value in decentralized economies.

The Commitment Problem: Talkers Versus Builders

The discussion then pivoted to the major studios. Alevtina Labyuk brought up the attempts by established players like Sega and Ubisoft to enter the blockchain segment. The question posed was: how will these giants integrate blockchain without fundamentally sacrificing the centralized control they currently enjoy?

Inal Kardan remained highly skeptical of the sincerity of many legacy studios’ efforts.