IMHO, it is not making sense to purchase in-game assets without the ownership. It is like paying for ebooks in kindle. But, what you get is actually right to read.
That’s absurd. It’s inside a video game. It’s all make-believe and inherently non-transferable, unlike an ebook. What would any afforded “ownership” actually mean in practical terms?
It’s yet another non-working solution in search of a problem.
Those invested in crypto are intentionally ignoring the fact that existence of some bits on some blockchain doesn’t mean EA or Blizzard have to honor any of this. And game items aren’t magically transferable between games because something something blockchain.
It is fortunate that the retailers you've chosen haven't messed up, or gone out of business, or been malicious. But so long as the ability to access the content is in their hands and determined on their end, it is an ongoing risk. It's hard to imagine today, but if Kindle ever stops being profitable for Amazon, it could all go away.
Same risk exists with e.g. Valve's Steam. I have bought games there, and I've had no problems in 10+ years. But I won't kid myself. The games are all DRM'd. If something happens, say Valve goes kaput, bankrupt, well, all that money is wasted and I can't access anything that I supposedly bought. It's happened with DRM'd material before too many times already to imagine it's impossible.
> But so long as the ability to access the content is in their hands and determined on their end, it is an ongoing risk.
And NFTs do nothing to change that, the moment the server hosting the content is offline your NFT is worthless. Of course the assumption is that someone else will start to host the content without getting paid and without actually holding the rights to the content. We already have that, it is called piracy and it works better without NFTs.