Will Web3 Games Replace Web2? Testing the Upland Co-Founder Argument

The argument you may have seen is that web3 games, built on blockchains with player-held assets and open markets, will become the default for gaming and gradually replace games that publishers fully control. Upland is often cited in this context because it is one of the older titles that frames itself as a virtual economy rather than a simple game.

The exact wording of the co-founder's remarks was not in the sources gathered for this guide. This article therefore treats the claim as a general thesis: that ownership of digital items, combined with transferable value, will make web3 games more attractive than web2 games over time. You should check the original source for precise statements before quoting or relying on them.

The claim has two parts. The first is a prediction about market share. The second is a statement about why, which usually rests on three ideas: players want to own what they earn, markets for virtual goods work better when open, and developers gain from sharing revenue with their communities. Each part can be tested separately, and that is how this guide approaches it.

Upland is a mobile and browser city-builder in which players buy, develop and trade virtual properties. Each property is tied to a real-world address, which is why the game is often described as a digital twin of a city. The game uses the UPX token for in-game transactions.

Players typically acquire properties, build on them and earn from rents or sales. Because property ownership is central, the game is closer to a property-trading board game than to an action or puzzle title. That design is part of why it attracts people who like economic systems and collecting.

Upland's official messaging in 2025 placed a larger focus on city building after a rebrand, with a new website, logo and brand identity. Readers should look at the official site and current announcements to understand the present feature set, because game systems and token rules can change.

Supporters of the thesis usually start with ownership. In a conventional game, items and currencies are licensed to the player and can be removed, reset or devalued by the publisher. In a web3 game, assets can be held in a wallet and, in principle, moved to other games or sold on open markets.

Second, they point to market design. Open markets can give players a clear way to price rare items and can reward early participants who help build a community. Some developers also share revenue with players or let them vote on decisions through governance tokens.

Third, they argue that interoperability will matter. If assets work across titles, a player's time and purchases carry over, which could make the wider ecosystem more valuable than any single game. Taken together, these points form a coherent case. The question is whether the reality of current titles supports it.

The most persuasive part of the argument is about trust and control. Players who have lost access to items in a shuttered online game, or who have seen rules change without notice, understand why ownership matters. A wallet-based asset does not disappear when a server is switched off, at least in the sense that the record on the chain remains.

The argument is also strong in creator economies. Where players contribute content, mods or community management, a shared economy can reward them directly. Blockchain tools make such rewards easier to track and transfer, although they do not guarantee fairness.

Finally, the thesis is correct about one narrow point: it is technically possible to build games in which assets are player-owned and transferable. Several titles in this category have shown that. What is less clear is whether those features are enough to draw large audiences that stay for the game itself.

The best-known criticism is that many web3 games have put monetization and token economics ahead of gameplay. A discussion among game developers and analysts in 2024 made a point that many people in the field have repeated: successful web3 games need to focus on gameplay before monetization. A game that is only interesting because of expected token gains tends to lose players when those gains fade.

Token economics is the second weak point. If new players must keep buying in to pay rewards to earlier players, the system depends on constant growth. Developers can adjust reward rates, but that changes the value that existing holders expected. Players should be wary of any game where earnings are the main reason to play.

Upland's own community has raised concerns of this kind. Public forum posts have questioned whether the game is declining, complained about restricted earnings payouts and asked whether liquidity has been reduced. Such posts are not proof of anything, but they show why readers should look at real activity data and the developer's published policies, not just promotional statements.

Upland's recent history is useful for testing the thesis. In April 2025 the team published material about building its own foundation and a new chain. The announcement said the new chain was temporarily more centralized but was intended to set up a more open and developer-friendly future. A move toward infrastructure control is a reminder that many web3 projects still depend on their own decisions in key areas.

In September 2025 Upland launched a 2.0 rebrand with a larger focus on city building, a new website, logo and brand identity. A rebrand can signal a shift in strategy, and a shift toward core gameplay is the kind of change the gameplay-first critique would welcome. Whether the new version succeeds is a question for players and for updated data.

The lesson is that a web3 game's direction is shaped by its operator as well as by the blockchain. Readers should follow official announcements, check whether promised features ship, and notice whether changes improve the game or mainly protect the economy.

To judge the thesis for any game, use a short checklist:

• Is the game fun with token rewards turned off? Try the free version or a demo if one exists.
• Does the economy have demand from players who want to play, not only from people hoping for returns?
• Are rules on earnings, withdrawals and item values published clearly and dated?
• Has the team shipped the features it promised in the last year?
• Is there independent discussion of the game's activity, such as active player counts, that you can check yourself?
• Can you still use your assets if the game stops being developed? Read the smart contract and asset terms.

A game that passes most of these tests is a stronger candidate for the thesis. A game that fails most of them is better treated as an experiment, not a replacement for conventional gaming.

Web2 games still have clear advantages. Publishers can fix bugs, balance combat and add content quickly, and they can offer polished experiences with clear support channels. Many players also prefer to pay a fixed price or subscription and avoid trading or token decisions entirely.

Titles that are not blockchain-based show the benefits of focused design. Polytopia, a turn-based strategy game with multiplayer, does not rely on blockchain features. Polytrack, a browser time-trial racer with a level editor, is also free of crypto elements. Their appeal rests on mechanics and community, which is the point critics raise against many web3 projects.

The realistic outcome may be coexistence. Web3 features could become one option among many, used where players want them, while the majority of games continue on traditional models. Replacement would require web3 titles to win on fun and reliability, not just on ownership.

If you are interested in web3 games, start with small commitments. Read what a game's tokens do, how rewards are funded and what happens if the developer stops updating the title. Keep wallet security practices in mind, including using official download and contract links and never sharing your seed phrase or recovery words with anyone.

Do not treat rewards as income or as a savings plan. Token prices can fall sharply, and game rules can change. If you choose to play, set a fixed budget and stop when it is spent. Gaming and crypto rules differ between countries, so check local laws before signing up or buying assets.

For readers who want a balanced view, compare at least one web3 title with one conventional game in the same genre. Notice which one you return to when the rewards are removed from the picture. That comparison will often say more about the thesis than any single claim.