The crux of the article is that the NFTs are on a blockchain, but that Ubisoft has published some legalese: > For a supposedly decentralized and "open" technol

The crux of the article is that the NFTs are on a blockchain, but that Ubisoft has published some legalese: > For a supposedly decentralized and "open" technology, Ubisoft places a lot of restrictions on who can own and use Digits. Quartz users have to be 18 years old, reside in one of a handful of countries ("USA, Canada, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Australia, or Brazil" for now), and use two-factor authentication on their Ubisoft Connect accounts. > Quartz owners also have to reach "XP Level 5" in Ghost Recon Breakpoint before they can collect or use the NFTs, a system seemingly designed to discourage pure speculators and to ensure "the Ubisoft Quartz platform is made for players, and for players only," the company says. That XP level status is confirmed by linking Quartz to your Ubisoft account, which is, of course, centrally controlled and subject to its own terms of use above and beyond the detailed Quartz terms of use. To me, that's kind of a minor point. Just because some lawyers made them put a bunch of tiny font writing in their EULA doesn't really mean much at all. If it's possible for a player to control their private keys (which it is if there's any ability to transfer NFTs to a wallet outside of the game), then these restrictions are meaningless. If this is the case, players will be able to transfer their owned items to other games (which support them), even games not produced by Ubisoft. That's what would be really interesting to look into, not just some 15 minute dunk piece from some writer skimming a EULA.