late take on cs skins stuff, but
one really cool part abt a crypto game eventually being fully tokenized as a network is that the game itself can start to align incentives more strongly with players that are power users / playing the game differently / playing along an investment / speculation lens (e.g. things like skin markets)
e.g. in the skins situation, from valve's perspective, the update actually makes a lot of sense for their interests as a web2 studio b/c it makes skins cheaper and more accessible, at the low cost of killing a speculative market that they accrue little value from. you burn a collector base, but they have little actual impact on the numbers they care about.
with a crypto game, instead of the gamers (and esp the power gamers that are like 0.1% of the base but with outsized influence) being just a pure consumer / paypig / someone the studio sells to, they can become full network participants that contribute to culture (which is valuable to network) and hopefully this results in better incentive alignment that prevents things like the valve skin nuke.
token networks are not a cure all of course, even in the optimal setup you have various stakeholders within a game with competing interests. plenty of examples out there of this right now. its hard to pull a hard and fast conclusion like "crypto gaming solves this" BUT imo there is actually a key paradigm shift here. small % of players -> becoming "player-owners" / key network participants has a lot of potential to solving some of the deepest alignment issues in games, since games take on almost deeper identity than most consumer products, because of how immersive and fully engaged / cultlike players are.