When the package involves what I said, it is a Greek gift.
Broader and diverse teams should manage to make the breakthrough. Not because of the external money invested. When someone fully uses the community potential it is going to be a success with or without money upfront.
Making good game is about delivering a product people like to pay for. Current blockchain devs seem to be mostly trying to find a way around it. I do not think that can ever happen. All they get from the blockchain is a road sign pointing towards a dead end.
I don't believe it will be like that, there are lots of great ideas that sometimes bring special features to the table and usually can't be simulated without blockchain and the community it is involved with.
But, I do agree with the part where you say that when the game is good, it's simply because people like to play it, not because of any other things.
I also believe that because of the decentralized nature of blockchain (the ones that are decentralized), there are lots of "features" that will only emerge on games that use blockchain-based backends, that otherwise would be too expensive to "reproduce" using traditional server centralized-based systems (even if by regions like most game factories are divided into).
Anyhow, I like to maintain the positivism about this. Especially because it brings the possibility for many that dumped their bosses and didn't find any alternatives.