Ubisoft starts selling NFTs In Games

[ati87]

Considering there are tons of infinitely easier methods via crypto to launder money or pay for illegal shit, I'm doubtful anyone is gonna care. Especially since I'm skeptical these will hold any value, especially for non-gamers. Gonna be hard to properly "cash out" any of them.

This is just them being dumb and trend chasing to try to get some of that sweet NFT money before it all crumbles like the scam that it is. Same dumb shit like when Nexon bought crypto for "longterm stability" and then cried crocodile tears a few years later when their crypto investment tanked.

What you are describing is how money laundering goes though. Stupid part of this scheme ofc is if the " value" doesn't hold up which is why most people just stick with crap like art and buildings and not Nintendo games or jpeg files.

[StillMcfuu]

I didn't read how they are planning the implementation, but I imagine it will be like cs and skins.

[Daedius]

Spectral tiger is essentially a physical NFT

Not really... NFTs = "unique", you own it and literally no one else. Not the same as a limited amount of the same identical items such as the spectral tiger.

[procne]

Allright. But who really makes money of this? Is it all just a big scheme were probably very few gets a big payout? or does it work like normal(can that word even be used here?) trading? I buy a NFT for 100 --> Sell it for 200? Can I even sell it to anyone?

You can sell the NFT, yes. The big scheme is that everyone is crazy about magic words of "blockchain" and "NFT", and with growing interest prices keep rising. Maybe there will be a moment people realize how dumb it is and it will all crash down.

[OmniSkribe]

Not really... NFTs = "unique", you own it and literally no one else. Not the same as a limited amount of the same identical items such as the spectral tiger.

Copyright
Ownership of an NFT does not inherently grant copyright or intellectual property rights to whatever digital asset the token represents. While someone may sell an NFT representing their work, the buyer will not necessarily receive copyright privileges when ownership of the NFT is changed and so the original owner is allowed to create more NFTs of the same work.

[Yunru]

Not really... NFTs = "unique", you own it and literally no one else. Not the same as a limited amount of the same identical items such as the spectral tiger.

Yeah its so stupid, that people just torrented all of NFTs created.

[procne]

Copyright
Ownership of an NFT does not inherently grant copyright or intellectual property rights to whatever digital asset the token represents. While someone may sell an NFT representing their work, the buyer will not necessarily receive copyright privileges when ownership of the NFT is changed and so the original owner is allowed to create more NFTs of the same work.

NFTs are nothing more than a register telling which token belongs to who, plus the history of transactions. Someone might link copyrights / ownership to a token, but it's all up to if those are respected by anyone. In this case Ubisoft pledges to respect ownership of skins as registered in this particular blockchain. And copyright / intellectual property rights might come / be linked with a token only if the whole world agrees to honor what the blockchain says.

[Yriel]

so its like buying pokemoncards or TCG cards(wow) only its digital? So you can collect these NFTs digital and own them forever? Cant someone just copy it and have it?

Both actually. Thats the stupid thing about NFTs. You (or someone else) can make a completely identical copy and use it, the NFT is just to prove that you own the "original". It is just completely irrelevant since a copy of a digital image or a duped item in a game is exactly the same as the "original" since it is digital.

Not really... NFTs = "unique", you own it and literally no one else. Not the same as a limited amount of the same identical items such as the spectral tiger.

As i understood it, the Trading Card items were "unique", too, each had its own activation code. Same with the example in the original post, there are a lot of those hats in Ghost Recon but each one is "unique" because it is linked to a NFT. Still they all look the same (except maybe for the number which they may or may be visible on the item itself).

[Maljinwo]

Just buy and sell cosmetics in TF2

[Mendzia]

I hope you guys are ready for a new way to fk players up from money by corps?
Current lootboxes meta will look like a candy in 2-3 years from now.

[crusadernero]

You can sell the NFT, yes. The big scheme is that everyone is crazy about magic words of "blockchain" and "NFT", and with growing interest prices keep rising. Maybe there will be a moment people realize how dumb it is and it will all crash down.

This kind of remind me about the South Park episode were the economy collapses. The solution is that everyone gotta believe in the economy again and spend money(Kyle sacrifises himself and hand out money to everyone while getting debt). When people started to believe and spend again, everything was back to the crazy normal where Randy would once again buy a useless margarita machine lol

- - - Updated - - -

I hope you guys are ready for a new way to fk players up from money by corps?
Current lootboxes meta will look like a candy in 2-3 years from now.

Well ofcourse, thats the world we live in. its buildt to consume. Buy, consume, buy, consume. Keep going. If it all falls flat and collapses, we start all over again. Spending money on useless shit is the cornerstone of our modern world lol. Imagine if people stopped wasting money on useless shit!

[Skorpionss]

I don't think NFTs are inherently bad, I think they are being misused. NFTs should just be a way for digital artists to protect their art. Like, I make a portrait in Photoshop, or a 3D model or whatever, and use NFTs as to register a serial number to a buyer in a decentralized manner. But then again I know next to jack shit about NFTs xD

[Zenfoldor]

I'll be honest, this is very concerning. Mixing real money and gaming economies can quickly ruin the gaming side. Despair is introduced, as it run concurrent to real money, and has few qualms about expanding the real world into whatever microcosm one might occupy. I just don't think this is safe on a certain level, no, do not like MTX, gambling, real life auction house, NFT, cash shops, gald selling, or any of that other junk in my games. To be clear, it doesn't ruin every game, but has the potential to ruin some of gaming overall.

That said, I don't find it much more concerning than I do streaming only platforms buying 3rd party exclusives, which is bound to happen.

I mean, look at streaming. At first, we were like, "look how great streaming is, see netflix the goat" and now we are like "netflix just got a new exclusive TV show to combat Hulu's new exclusive, to combat the new exclusives from HBO Max, Disney +, Amazon, and Peacock."

TV streaming is becoming more like gaming, lol. Competition creates the need for exclusives(aka competitive advantage) so really streaming just proves the walled garden approach right. We are getting a higher quantity of quality TV shows than ever before, due to the need for exclusives to sell the service. Competition and competitive advantage tides, thus, raise most boats. Something to think about during the next platform exclusive debate.

[Gorsameth]

Not really... NFTs = "unique", you own it and literally no one else. Not the same as a limited amount of the same identical items such as the spectral tiger.

Except when your putting #1767594 somewhere tiny on the item, is it significantly more 'unique' then a Spectral tiger?
It might matter for #1 and some other limited set of numbers but for 99% of the NFT's the number will be entirely meaningless and indistinguishable from any random Spectral tiger.

[procne]

I don't think NFTs are inherently bad, I think they are being misused. NFTs should just be a way for digital artists to protect their art. Like, I make a portrait in Photoshop, or a 3D model or whatever, and use NFTs as to register a serial number to a buyer in a decentralized manner. But then again I know next to jack shit about NFTs xD

Sure, that works, as long as the whole world agrees to respect this particular NFT / blockchain as the source of truth for the ownership. But then again we already have copyright and patent laws, so what do the NFTs help with? Some say they give an easier method of verifying authenticity. But then again the token itself does not contain the copy of the piece of art, so how can you know the token you are presented is indeed linked with this piece of art? Or that this piece is original? You still need some central database recording relation between tokens and the piece of art. Or the token will have to include the piece of art somehow.

- - - Updated - - -

Except when your putting #1767594 somewhere tiny on the item, is it significantly more 'unique' then a Spectral tiger?
It might matter for #1 and some other limited set of numbers but for 99% of the NFT's the number will be entirely meaningless and indistinguishable from any random Spectral tiger.

True, but the idea is that there would be only a single spectral tiger. While NFTs could perfectly be used as "serial numbers", the whole craze is now about uniqueness. People are paying big bucks to own "the original", to have something noone else can have.

[Puri]

I see no difference to any cosmetic store that just is normal today. Just because they are unique (or rather uniquely marked) does not change anything at all, at best they can sell those items at a higher price for those who care about those things.

Personally I would only be cautious if they allowed uploading own textures to create unique items. We've seen several exploits in Counterstrike using the spray can logo, and while this was in a different time and the pictures were directly transmitted without checking from one client over the server to the other clients (today they would go through several checks and conversions on the server before being pushed to other clients), I would still not feel very happy about it.

[kail]

I didn't read how they are planning the implementation, but I imagine it will be like cs and skins.

So far yes but with some uniqueness to each individual skin. According to the article it will likely be implemented with limited edition hats that each have a different number.

[BeepBoo]

I see no difference to any cosmetic store that just is normal today. Just because they are unique (or rather uniquely marked) does not change anything at all, at best they can sell those items at a higher price for those who care about those things.

Not that this is going to be convincing to anyone, but it's way easier to hack and dupe things when they aren't backed by NFTs. I think this is kinda the point and why NFTs will gain traction in the gaming industry, which sucks for people who don't consider "digital goods" in the same light as physical goods (you know.. since the only limitation to digital replication is fake limitation, versus physical property and materials).

[Fencers]

Again, why would Ubisoft want that? They don't care if Koolkat420 earns money.

I am sure there is a take Ubisoft would by using their platforms for the trade of digital goods in their games. Seems reasonable enough.

That is exactly what I would do. Asset development is expensive. Also once I (my company) provide assets at X pricing the market will expect a certain degree of quality and transaction value as standard. Which costs me (my imaginary game company haha) more money as well and can cause friction among customers if I need to raise prices or lower quality.

Having customers create the content and decide their pricing seems a lot more cost and time effective than hiring asset artists that have to be paid a salary that is not insignificant and likewise limits our ability for deliverables.

And even if they did, what do you need NFTs for?

I am not sure what value of asking about need is here. Nothing is needed here in the realm of entertainment, per se. This is just a methodology.

The need is to make money, simply. Companies need to look for ways to increase their revenue and market presence always. Growth never stops.

In Warframe you can buy player-made skins via steam, no need for any tokens. They can sell unique stuff in their games, too, without NFTs.

So what? This isn't Warframe.

Plenty of games have had "free" mods and so on. This is just another method.

The only benefit NFTs would bring is that, after the game died, you could still prove that you own that beanie that no longer exists. Who cares?

Likely the people who own the NFTs. As long as a single person cares, there is a value that exists.

[Edge-]

Fencers, I think you're "suffering" from not having much knowledge of the current NFT marketplace and are looking at it from the purely theoretical perspective. Because from that perspective, they're amazing! The potential is immense, the ability for artists to earn money off their digital art (in any form) is huge, and it adds value to digital goods that never had them (which we can argue might be a good/bad thing).

The practical reality is...the polar opposite. It's been rife with fraud (Ape NFT game that took tons of folks money for thumbnails and then disappeared), theft (thousands of artists continually find that their artwork has been turned into a NFT and sold without their knowledge and without them receiving any money), ignorance ("YOU CAN HAVE CLOUDS SWORD IN WORLD OF WARCRAFT!!!!!" pitches from idiots with investment that don't know what the fuck they're talking about), and generally scummy behavior (remember Jack Dorsey getting $2M for a NFT of his first Tweet? I guess he needed money for coke that weekend).

This instance with Purple isn't even customers creating their own stuff to sell, it's Ubi creating the stuff, stamping a number on it, and selling it. Is there room for a NFT marketplace of actual player created items within a game? Sure, probably. But I've seen so many pitches for those kinds of games that I'm doubtful one will ever exist. About 70% are on the level of, "YOU CAN USE CLOUDS SWORD IN WORLD OF WARCRAFT!" as a literal example, not a theoretical one, because the people behind it genuinely don't even know what the fuck they're talking about, another 15% are folks who seem insanely shady and like their funding comes from money laundering, 10% are folks with aspirations to build a NFT game but literally no gamedev experience and without any budget to meaningfully devote to the "game" part of the blockchain/NFT game they want to make, and maybe 5% actually understand the tech, understand gamedev, and have a chance at making something that might see launch.

NFT's in theory? Freakin rad. NFT's in practical reality so far? Just an endless scam.