Ethereum has achieved what many critics thought was out of reach. Transaction fees are now just a few cents, block capacity is growing, and the base layer is practical for daily use again. In early 2026, Vitalik Buterin recognized this progress and said the original rollup-focused roadmap no longer matches how the ecosystem really works.
Some people saw this as a sign that Layer 2s are becoming less important. Others thought it quietly supported an ‘L1-first’ future. Both views miss the more complex reality.
Vitalik did not reject Layer 2s. Instead, he urged them to have a clear purpose rather than just existing by default. This difference is especially important for blockchain gaming.
What Vitalik’s Critique of Layer 2s Really Means
Vitalik’s argument focused on outcomes, not ideology. Many Layer 2s were expected to mature into highly decentralized, interoperable systems secured almost entirely by Ethereum. That progress slowed. Some teams chose faster iteration, cleaner user experience, or regulatory clarity instead of pushing decentralization to its limits.
Meanwhile, Ethereum Layer 1 improved faster than expected. Transaction costs fell significantly, and planned gas limit increases will enable even more activity. This change challenges the old idea that L2s are mainly needed to reduce congestion.
Instead of sticking to an old view, Vitalik described Layer 2s as a spectrum. Each chain has its own guarantees, performance, and trade-offs. Users and developers now make choices based on what they need, rather than assuming all Layer 2s are the same.
Why Ethereum Layer 1 Still Falls Short for Games
Lower fees alone do not make a network good for gaming. On-chain games create constant changes from movement, combat, crafting, trading, and social features. Even small transaction costs add up fast when players take many actions each minute.
Throughput is an even bigger challenge. Ethereum’s base layer can only handle a limited number of transactions per second. One popular multiplayer game can exceed this limit during busy times, like launches or live events.
Latency is another problem. Games need quick feedback. Delays of even a few seconds can ruin the experience and annoy players. Shared blockspace also brings uncertainty that developers cannot fully manage.
Why Blockchain Gaming Needs Specialized Execution
Games demand characteristics that financial applications rarely require. High, steady throughput is more important than handling occasional spikes. Predictable timing matters more than average fees. Fast response times matter more than full decentralization at every level.
Layer 1s focus on fairness and shared access. All apps compete for the same blockspace under the same rules. This setup keeps the network safe but does not work well for real-time interactive software.
Games do not want to compete with DeFi or NFTs for space. They need to run separately, process actions in parallel, and have performance guarantees that shared environments cannot easily offer.
This gap is why gaming has moved to custom layers instead of waiting for improvements to the base layer.
How Gaming-Focused Layer 2s Address These Limits
Gaming Layer 2s give games their own blockspace. This means gameplay does not compete with other activities in the ecosystem. Developers get stable performance, and players have fewer interruptions during busy times.
Many of these networks use custom sequencing or sharded execution. Actions can happen in parallel across matches, regions, or instances. This lowers latency and increases throughput, while still keeping things verifiable.
Fee structures are different too. Games create thousands of small actions that would be too expensive on a general-purpose chain. Pricing that understands the needs of games keeps these actions affordable over time, without depending on temporary subsidies.
Networks like Base show this in action. They support fast-paced games with lots of transactions and steady user activity.
Layer 3s and the Studio-Led Scaling Model
As games become more complex, some studios take specialization further. Layer 3s, built on Layer 2 infrastructure, let developers fully control how their games run while still relying on Ethereum for security.
This setup is similar to how big software systems develop. Shared layers manage trust and settlement, while application layers focus on performance and user experience.
Major publishers have already tried this approach. Atari and Nexon have both shown interest in using multi-layer blockchain setups that keep security and execution separate.
Usage Data Supports Specialization
Layer 2 user numbers dropped in late 2025, while activity on Ethereum Layer 1 went up. Some said this meant L2s were becoming less important, but the full story is more complex.
Most of the growth on Layer 1 came from speculation and simple transfers made possible by low fees. Gaming took a different path, with activity focused on networks designed for fast, real-time interactions.
Tokenized in-game assets kept increasing in value. Studios integrated faster, and whole ecosystems grew around gaming-focused chains.
If Layer 2s were not needed, developers would not keep picking them for their most demanding projects.
The Future Is Layered, Not Competitive
Ethereum’s role is now clearer. Layer 1 handles security and settling value. Layer 2s focus on execution and performance. Layer 3s are tailored for specific uses, like games.
Vitalik’s comments do not weaken this setup. They support it. Each layer does what it is best at.
Blockchain gaming shows the limits of trying to scale everything the same way. It also proves why specialized Layer 2s are still essential.
As Ethereum grows, Layer 2s do not disappear. They become more focused and even more important for making blockchains places where people want to play games.