Ubisoft starts selling NFTs In Games

[bbr]

And mee6 the discord bot joins the party.
An absolute storm went on in their support discord - muted all channels for several hours and threats of banning anyone who posts hate - that doesnt stop the users obviously.

[procne]

Jokes on them, I just saved every single one of those images and now they're worthless.

Well, you having a picture of Mona Lisa does not reduce the price /value of the original painting. And it's not any physical property of the painting that makes it more valuable than hundreds of copies of it, that exist. Those copies may be better, in better state but they will still be worth pennies. The value of the painting comes from the fact there is only 1 original and collectors want to have originals.

The same principle is supposed to be applied to NFTs. Except the goods represented by NFTs have no value yet, are not publicly acclaimed (compared to the real art), often are procedurally generated, and only after their introduction creators try their spin doctoring to make enough noise around them so that everyone wants them and their value grows. It's like in the past artist first worked hard and tried to create a real piece of art, and after years this piece was gaining value and popularity. With NFTs it seems to have reversed - someone wants to just sell stuff so is "creating" just anything out of thin air, and then tries to convince people it has value

I imagine some people, who couldn't afford to become collectors of some real things, might get into it, as a cheap alternative. But most will just treat it as investment scheme, to make money of the former group.

- - - Updated - - -

Why doesn't someone create an NFT for the re-sale of digital goods that has a time period of degradation and a percentage of the re-sale would go back to the original developers/publishers? It seems like if someone could do that it would be a billion dollar idea.

Not sure what you mean by time period of degradation, but Ubisoft may already take cuts from the transactions for their NFTs

[Stickiler]

That depends, take for example SSL certificates and code signing certificates. One is responsible for showing your browser a green padlock and the other is responsible for windows not screaming about installing stuff from "unknown sources".

Both have literally infinite supply, are fully automated, issued within a seconds, you can even make one yourself (self signed certificates) but nobody will respect it.
Yet they cost money. So how is that? Why are they not completely free? Why some of them costs thousands of dollars?

Well, for a start, the SSL Certificates that are actually automated are available for free(Let's Encrypt). The only Certs which aren't available for free(EV and OV certs) cost money because they have actual humans who are involved in verifying and confirming the identity behind them. That's the same for Code Signing Certificates, they require a vetting process whereby your organization and your intended use for the code signing cert are validated. Those people and their time costs money, not to mention the other costs involved, like undergoing certification from the browser, OS and firmware vendors to get your root certificates validated, which is why your self-signed certificates don't mean shit(unless you get the root cert you used to self-sign it installed on someones computer).

[Yriel]

Well, you having a picture of Mona Lisa does not reduce the price /value of the original painting. And it's not any physical property of the painting that makes it more valuable than hundreds of copies of it, that exist. Those copies may be better, in better state but they will still be worth pennies. The value of the painting comes from the fact there is only 1 original and collectors want to have originals.

But a copy of an actual painting is not identical to the original. A copy of a digital file is identical to the original.

[Ghost of Cow]

But a copy of an actual painting is not identical to the original. A copy of a digital file is identical to the original.

Objects being identical (or near to identical) has never really impacted the concept of value and collectability, though.

I know it's impossible to have a 1:1 relationship between physical and virtual, but you can pump out 100,000 identical objects in an assembly line and they're all worth $1 until you say that Celebrity X owned one of them and suddenly that particular one is worth $71,326 at auction.

[Yriel]

Objects being identical (or near to identical) has never really impacted the concept of value and collectability, though.

I know it's impossible to have a 1:1 relationship between physical and virtual, but you can pump out 100,000 identical objects in an assembly line and they're all worth $1 until you say that Celebrity X owned one of them and suddenly that particular one is worth $71,326 at auction.

True.
But i wonder if that is transferable to virtual items. Do you think that an image file with copies downloadable everywhere will be worth $71,326 if at one point celebrity X had it on their laptop?
I think with physical objects senses play a large role in those collections. Touch something, smell something that celebrity X owned. An image file from a cloud though? Not sure.

[BeepBoo]

Objects being identical (or near to identical) has never really impacted the concept of value and collectability, though.

This is entirely false... Something being unobtainable at all in any form vs something being easily obtainable always has an impact on the value.

Just ask yourself this: would more people find something collectible and view it as a collectible if it weren't easy to obtain perfect copies? Obviously yes. Even one person difference in the market theoretically impacts the demand, and thus the price. Even if it's only like 1/10000090723th of a penny.

[Ghost of Cow]

This is entirely false... Something being unobtainable at all in any form vs something being easily obtainable always has an impact on the value.

Just ask yourself this: would more people find something collectible and view it as a collectible if it weren't easy to obtain perfect copies? Obviously yes. Even one person difference in the market theoretically impacts the demand, and thus the price. Even if it's only like 1/10000090723th of a penny.

I think you're confusing broader "collectibles" with "singular, unique objects" which is what's being discussed.

Yes, if a run of a certain toy is 10,000 packages vs 1,000,000 packages that would impact the value. But if we're talking about the Mona Lisa vs copies of the Mona Lisa, it's a very different story.

[BeepBoo]

I think you're confusing broader "collectibles" with "singular, unique objects" which is what's being discussed.

Yes, if a run of a certain toy is 10,000 packages vs 1,000,000 packages that would impact the value. But if we're talking about the Mona Lisa vs copies of the Mona Lisa, it's a very different story.

It's not. I'm personally less willing to value the original because all I personally care about is having it's likeness in my presence. If the only way I can get that likeness is by buying the original, I'd have to compete with everyone else to get it and I'd inherently expect to pay more. Conversely, if I can get something close-enough, then I don't have to worry about competing and can get my "close enough" for a lot cheaper, thus removing me from the "demand" for the original.

Ergo, I can extrapolate that, since _I_ think like that, it's not impossible to think like that, therefore there's definitely other people who think like that, therefore the number of people competing drops, etc.

Again, just because some millionaire values it at 200mil doesn't mean it wouldn't be 230mil if there were only one and only the possibility of one (as in it was literally impossible to recreate or create a "good 'nuff" copy). The number of people interested in something always has an impact on value for every object in existence period. Less people interested = less value. More = more.

[Trumpcat]

The mass outcry will only happen if Blizzard does it. Then it will be headlines everywhere. I think they are waiting for others to lay down the path for NFTs and normalize them, then they jump on and start the milking without the bad press of being the first.

[Edge-]

Well, you having a picture of Mona Lisa does not reduce the price /value of the original painting.

NFT owners don't own the "original painting". They own a receipt that say they own the "original" .jpg.

And considering the rampant art theft going on within the NFT community, at this point I think making an "official certificate of ownership" with a piece of paper and some crayons has about the same value/utility/weight.

I'm still astounded that Ubi has managed to create a NFT that not even the NFT crowd bloody wants. They'll buy fuckin anything, as evidenced by all the super shit-tier quality ape images and other shit they're buying hoping to get rich quick.

[Verdugo]

https://twitter.com/TroyBakerVA/stat...69350621437955

Troy "Shillmachine" Baker now jumps on the NFT bandwagon. Never liked him anyway.

[Shakzor]

The mass outcry will only happen if Blizzard does it. Then it will be headlines everywhere. I think they are waiting for others to lay down the path for NFTs and normalize them, then they jump on and start the milking without the bad press of being the first.

If Marvel NFTs advertised from Stan Lees Twitteraccount didn't cause a big outcry, i have a hard time believing that Blizzard doing it would cause any more fuss.

[Yriel]

People always mention that with NFTs you could have your NFT items in different games.
But wouldn't NFTs be an active hindrance to having items being transferable between games? If i buy Ubisofts hat NFT, i get ownership of that specific file on their server. Now if Blizzard would want to implement that hat into WoW, that would have to be with another file that i don't own.
For an NFT transfer to work Ubisoft would have to remove that specific file from their server and put that exact file onto wows server. But since WoW probably uses another engine, coding language, naming convention and so on that file will never work there. But you only own that specific file.

[Stickiler]

If i buy Ubisofts hat NFT, i get ownership of that specific file on their server. But you only own that specific file.

This is a misunderstanding of how the NFTs work, you don't own the specific file on their server. You "own" a record in their database, which points at a specific Item with usually a unique ID attached indicating what number item you own. "I own #69 of the red baseball cap". Also, to be clear, non-gaming NFTs work the same way, you don't actually mint the image/item itself in to the blockchain(Cos that would take up too much space), you mint a URL to the image/item you want as the NFT. This also means if the link host goes down, your NFT goes bye-bye.


The supposed upside of the NFT is that you own that record in their database, with some information stored inside the NFT itself. So Blizzard contacts the Blockchain and asks for the items you own, sees you own Red Baseball Cap #69 from Ubisoft, so they then hit the Ubisoft server to find out what that item actually is, and could theoretically then do something with that information.


It all falls apart when you realise NFTs and the Blockchain are entirely worthless in this setup, and as Twitch Prime has shown us, this kind of item redemption already works without NFTs.

[procne]

Indeed, functionally nothing really changed, it's still the game server that has to recognise the ownership and based on that show the stuff in game or not. The only thing that changed is that instead of keeping this data in server's internal DB it's now kept in blockchain where everyone can see it.

[kaminaris]

Well, for a start, the SSL Certificates that are actually automated are available for free(Let's Encrypt). The only Certs which aren't available for free(EV and OV certs) cost money because they have actual humans who are involved in verifying and confirming the identity behind them. That's the same for Code Signing Certificates, they require a vetting process whereby your organization and your intended use for the code signing cert are validated. Those people and their time costs money, not to mention the other costs involved, like undergoing certification from the browser, OS and firmware vendors to get your root certificates validated, which is why your self-signed certificates don't mean shit(unless you get the root cert you used to self-sign it installed on someones computer).

Nobody in the right mind would use lets encrypt in some serious environment. So no, they are not available for free. Lets encrypt is good for some small non-critical stuff but thats about it.

Typical process for lowest tier of ssl certs DV that cost money is still automated.

[Orby]

https://twitter.com/TroyBakerVA/stat...69350621437955

Troy "Shillmachine" Baker now jumps on the NFT bandwagon. Never liked him anyway.

So has Bret Hart (wrestler) and Mike Shinoda (Linkin Park). Just kill me now

[Edge-]

I'm just wondering if all these folks are just this stupid/easily duped, or if they're this dishonest/amoral about all this shit.

Because it seems like an either/or, and neither choice is a particularly good one.

Fuck man, why do folks always fall for the obviously bullshit get-rich-quick schemes. Sure, a few folks will succeed, but the overwhelming majority need to fail for those folks to succeed. You're not gonna be the lucky one.

[Coldkil]

So, what's stopping me from creating 10 or so fale identities, create NFTs, and start selling them between these identities at increasing prices to fool the blockchain into thinking my NFT has increased in value, so when the first gullible guy thinking "this is raising, need to buy now to resell later" buys it from me i basically scammed him woth fale transactions.

I'm not saying it's a zero cost operation, but i assume people actually making money from this thing are already loaded with money, as it's a game you play on bog numbers. It's the random joes thinking "i can make money out of this if i buy right" that are the target of the NFT pyramid scheme.