I feel like the reason why gamers are so against NFTs in games (aside from hating lootboxes, which is fair) is that games are inherently centralised. The only true benefit of gaming NFTs is decentralisation, and games are precisely defined by their limitations, their rules.

But what about "X thing NFTs enable" (interoperability, reselling, etc.)? As many have pointed out, you can already have all those things without NFTs. You can build marketplaces, APIs, and SDK's to share content between games. You can do all those things, in a centralised way.

The new thing NFTs bring to the table is the ability to do all of those things in a decentralised way. Right now, there aren't any obvious benefits for decentralisation in games (not enough to win over the downsides, at least). So from the outside it looks like a scam.

As for interoperability, @chhopsky pointed out that it's very very hard (as in: impossible for now) to make games work with external items/objects/whatever without just adding stuff to the game manually. Plus in most cases you don't want people to load random stuff in your game.

This all goes to a deeper point of: Games consist of set of rules, which have to be set by someone (who usually knows how to make them fun). Maybe we can eventually build protocols with base rules people can extend on, maybe we build standards, and SDKs, and even game engines.

But, for now, it looks like we're just adding this technology that - favours the people already using it - makes games more complicated and less performant - has a really steep learning curve - moves a lot of money without any obvious benefits, and it looks like a scam.