🎮 Fortnite On-Chain? Coinbase’s Jesse Pollak vs. GameFi Skeptics

[cryptoenthusiast]

Coinbase’s Jesse Pollak (head of Base L2) stirred Crypto Twitter after suggesting Fortnite’s in-game economy could be “10x better onchain.”

His argument:

For companies → open economies = anyone can build on them.

For players → true asset ownership + free market pricing.

For everyone → global access + lower platform fees.

Sounds bullish, right? Not everyone agreed.

️ The Pushback

John Wang (ex-Immutable) wasn’t buying it:

Roblox already gives devs near-infinite APIs & analytics.

Web2 systems still offer better UX + higher retention tools.

Lower fees ≠ better business if the player experience suffers.

Pollak countered:

On-chain APIs are more expressive & powerful.

Permissioned systems can still exist on-chain if needed.

But critics kept pointing to the elephant in the room: GameFi’s track record is rough.

🪦 The Ghosts of GameFi Past

Axie Infinity collapsed → unsustainable tokenomics + security failures.

60% of blockchain gamers churn within 30 days.

Many projects built Ponzi-like “earn first, fun later” models that imploded once hype faded.

Meanwhile, Web2 titans (Roblox, Fortnite, Ubisoft) continue to dominate without tokens, proving fun > speculation.

Can On-Chain Gaming Still Work?

Composable economies + open APIs could unlock innovation.

Partnerships (Immutable + Ubisoft) hint at hybrid Web2–Web3 futures.

UX, retention, and speculative models still cripple most projects.

GameFi’s market cap is $13.2B — not dead, but limping.

Pollak’s vision is bold, but the skeptics currently have stronger receipts. The sector needs a killer game with real product–market fit before the “10x better onchain” claim sticks.

Question for you: Would you actually play a Fortnite-style game on-chain if it meant real asset ownership… or would you stick to Web2 where the fun (and smoother UX) still dominates?

[Nahid10]

I’d definitely play a Fortnite-style game on-chain if it was done right. The idea of true ownership is a huge shift. Right now, if I spend hundreds on skins in Fortnite or CoD, they’re basically sunk costs — I can’t resell them, I can’t trade them, and Epic could remove them tomorrow. With on-chain assets, those same skins become part of an open market where I can buy, sell, or even bring them into other ecosystems.

For developers, the idea of composable economies is just as powerful. Modders, indie studios, or even fans could build extensions on top of Fortnite without asking permission from Epic. That level of openness has always led to more creativity and network effects (look at what mods did for Minecraft and Skyrim).

Yes, the UX needs to catch up — but dismissing the whole idea because Axie blew up feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The next big on-chain game won’t look like Axie, it’ll look like Fortnite with Web3 rails.

[jacson4]

This post is deleted!

[jacson4]

Honestly, I don’t think most players care about “true ownership” as much as crypto folks think they do. If you ask a Fortnite kid whether they’d rather have smoother gameplay, instant matchmaking, and polished UI or the ability to trade their skins on-chain — they’ll pick UX every time.

Roblox, Fortnite, and even Minecraft already have massive creator economies, and they work because they’re frictionless. Adding wallets, gas fees, and extra steps just kills retention, especially in younger demographics. The truth is, speculation and “earn-first” models have poisoned the well for GameFi. Until we see a game that’s fun first and seamlessly integrates on-chain features, Web2 will keep dominating.

For now, the best shot seems like hybrid models (Immutable x Ubisoft, Square Enix experiments, etc.) rather than going “full on-chain.”