Common Mistakes Studios Still Make When Building NFT Games in 2026
I’ve been watching NFT games evolve since the early days of 2021. Back then, everyone was rushing to mint something, slap a token on it, and call it a “game.” A lot has changed by 2026, but honestly, some studios are still repeating the same old mistakes.
Let me get straight to the point.
1. Starting with tokens instead of a game loop
This one refuses to die. I still see studios pitching tokenomics decks before they can explain why someone would play their game for more than ten minutes. If your core loop isn’t fun without NFTs, it won’t magically become fun with them.
A good example on the positive side is Gods Unchained. Strip away the marketplace and cards-as-NFTs, and you still have a solid competitive card game. Many failed projects did the opposite: farming mechanics first, gameplay later. Players noticed. They always do.
By 2026, players have already lived through three cycles of “earn-first” games. They don’t buy the promise anymore.
2. Treating NFTs as speculative assets, not player tools
Studios still design NFTs as if players are traders, not players. I’ve seen games where items are intentionally scarce, overpriced, and locked behind early mints, with no real utility beyond resale. That creates short-term buzz and long-term emptiness. Once trading volume drops, the game collapses with it.
Look at Axie Infinity’s later iterations after its hard lessons. Axies became less about flipping and more about progression, breeding strategy, and in-game usefulness. It wasn’t perfect, but the shift mattered.
In 2026, players expect NFTs to do something meaningful inside the game world. Stats, progression, identity, access, customization. If it only exists to be sold, it’s dead weight.
3. Ignoring onboarding friction because “it’s Web3”
Some studios still said that: “Our players are crypto-native, they’ll figure it out.” No, they won’t. And even if they could, they don’t want to.
Wallet pop-ups, seed phrases, gas fees, network switching. Every extra step bleeds users. Traditional games figured this out years ago. NFT games don’t get a free pass.
Games like Illuvium and projects building on Immutable X understood this early. Abstract the blockchain layer. Let players play first. Ownership can come later.
If your tutorial needs a blockchain explainer, you already lost half your audience.
4. Building for one chain and pretending it’s enough
In 2026, chain tribalism feels outdated.
Studios still lock assets into a single ecosystem and hope players won’t care. They do. Fees, speed, liquidity, and ecosystem tools vary wildly between chains. Players want flexibility.
Cross-chain support isn’t a “nice-to-have” anymore. It’s table stakes. This is something our team talked about in more detail in "The State of NFT Games in 2026 and What Players Are Looking For" (https://medium.com/@alexdo1123..../the-state-of-nft-ga especially when discussing why interoperability shapes retention more than marketing ever did.
Games that stay siloed feel fragile. One chain issue, and everything freezes.
5. Overengineering economics and underestimating behavior
I’ve reviewed whitepapers that look like PhD theses. Inflation curves, sinks, burns, rebase mechanics. On paper, everything balances. In reality, players behave emotionally, not mathematically.
They hoard when you expect spending. They exploit loops you thought were minor. They abandon systems that feel unfair, even if they are “technically balanced.”
StepN is a classic example. The math wasn’t the main problem. Player behavior was. Too many incentives pointed in the same direction, and once growth slowed, the system couldn’t adapt fast enough.
Design economics around how people actually play, not how spreadsheets say they should.
6. Shipping early and disappearing afterward
Some studios still treat launch as the finish line.
NFT games don’t work that way. On-chain games are live systems. Bugs, exploits, balance issues, community backlash. These aren’t exceptions; they’re normal.
The studios that survive are visible, responsive, and honest. Regular patches. Clear communication. Admitting mistakes early instead of ghosting Discord for weeks.
Players don’t expect perfection. They expect presence.
7. Final thoughts
In 2026, what really makes the difference is how well a studio understands its players. People come to games for enjoyment, a sense of fairness, and the feeling that their time and progress actually matter.
Now, the NFT games that last are often the ones that feel the least forced. They focus on making a good game first, and let the blockchain sit naturally in the background.
