Right, I think you make a lot of good points which I (for some reason) had to remind some friends who have spent money gambling for skins in games that virtual

Right, I think you make a lot of good points which I (for some reason) had to remind some friends who have spent money gambling for skins in games that virtual items can indeed have sustained high value appraisals from large groups of users. From a user perspective (assuming the NFT's were on a chain with reasonable tx fees), liberating one's Steam inventory would likely be a net positive depending on the player (some are susceptible to scams and would do better to remain in Valve's safer, slower system). Being able to trade skins directly for money to anyone with no third party and no corporate tax rate would be great. The issue of course is that Valve has no reason to do this, and this is important, because a huge part of the reason in game items have dollar value is that they have aesthetic value in popular, well crafted games. Anyone who makes a quality video game will seek to monetize their in game items, not liberate them through NFTs. For this reason I am indeed saying that NFTs and their properties have to be a selling point. This means that game developers make their money up front on the initial minting or selling of the NFTs (hoping that the real promise of a forever more decentralized market adds a premium - this should also include a promise of no future releases or algorithmic/predictable future releases), or the NFTs existed before the game and were valued enough that integrating them into a game after the fact is somehow profitable. Its certainly an interesting space (will be a lot more interesting when volume flows across cheaper chains than PoW Ethereum).