No, no you should not, and many game journalists agree! From a meta-journalistic perspective, it seems that blockchain games are exceptionally popular among game journalists despite our innate attraction to fancy bored primate portraits. A common argument is that these games have physical commence integrated into their narrative and game design and thus are a counter product to the inherent value of games, to deliver an experience or convey information using entertainment as a pretense.
Peeling away the pretense of promising riches and fame by simply playing a video game, blockchain games as a genre is but one in the ocean of game incentivizing commence between players and translating results into physical currency. This meta-conversion of the digital and intangible data stored in remote sites into cashable currency is most commonly observed in MMORPGs, games like FF online series, World of Warcraft, Warframe, or even Old school RuneScape where an arbitrary artificial scarcity is introduced to certain contents like rare weapons, materials, cosmetics, premium privileges and more to create a basic demand for a play-driven economy, effectively creating a meta-gameplay loop outside the normal gameplay and extending the playtime required by encouraging players to specialize in certain tasks like farming raids, dungeons or bosses or even acting as intermediates for potential buyers. Many games try to maintain detachment from reality to sustain their entertainment values by adding trading constraints like restricting trading currency to in-game premium currencies and enforcing the “no cash-out” policies to reduce the mass coordination of for-profit trading events. There seems to be a fine balance between real-world commercialism and in-game economy, and video games are walking on a precarious meta path of straying to serve the interest of divergent-driven markets as opposed to education, information, and entertainment.
