4 ms·

Exactly. The idea that NFTs somehow help in these kind of situations is utter nonsense. Sure, if Ubisoft minted an NFT and give it to you, they couldn't delete

Exactly. The idea that NFTs somehow help in these kind of situations is utter nonsense. Sure, if Ubisoft minted an NFT and give it to you, they couldn't delete the NFT itself. However, it is always up to Ubisoft or whoever else is using NFTs whether they want to honour that NFT or not. You can present them with the NFT, and they can say "Hmmm... no." An NFT is like a key to a house. You can use it to open the door until the owner of the house decides to change the locks. You still own the key, but that impresses nobody.

cableshaft 5y ago
It'll be bad PR if they don't honor it, though. Purchasers of the NFT don't know the original holder got banned, and they have every reason to assume buying the NFT from that person will give them whatever privilege or cosmetic it's supposed to grant them in-game. Enough people don't have that happen and complain about it loudly enough and Ubisoft will feel pressure to change their policies to honor it. It'd be a stupid hill to die on anyway. Granted Ubisoft has done some stupid stuff in the past, but this one I don't think they'd win in the end.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  This is true for any system, not just one based on NFTs. NFTs add nothing here.
- rowanajmarshall 5y ago
  It's bad PR that they delete inactive account with games at all, but they did it anyway.
  - cableshaft 5y ago
    And according to the article they got pushback, said it was a glitch (his got deleted after a year of inactivity, they claim it's supposed to be four years, and in part to comply with data privacy laws, I'm guessing in the UK as theirs are pretty stringent), and also said they're going to more or less undo it in this instance, meanwhile Steam wasted no time announcing they don't delete inactive accounts ever, gaining some free brownie points and a decent number of people will probably avoid their store in the future so as not to risk this happening. So yeah, I maintain my point that if they offer NFTs, allow owners to sell them to other people (which is kind of the point of NFTs), and then decide certain instances of NFTs don't have to be honored because they banned that person, they're going to get enough articles like this that they'll feel pressure to walk back such an action.
    - magicalist 5y ago
      So from the post you responded to > The idea that NFTs somehow help in these kind of situations is utter nonsense is accurate. Is your point that NFTs wouldn't hurt the situation? That's a different claim.

cableshaft 5y ago

It'll be bad PR if they don't honor it, though. Purchasers of the NFT don't know the original holder got banned, and they have every reason to assume buying the NFT from that person will give them whatever privilege or cosmetic it's supposed to grant them in-game. Enough people don't have that happen and complain about it loudly enough and Ubisoft will feel pressure to change their policies to honor it. It'd be a stupid hill to die on anyway. Granted Ubisoft has done some stupid stuff in the past, but this one I don't think they'd win in the end.

user-the-name 5y ago
This is true for any system, not just one based on NFTs. NFTs add nothing here.
rowanajmarshall 5y ago
It's bad PR that they delete inactive account with games at all, but they did it anyway.
- cableshaft 5y ago
  And according to the article they got pushback, said it was a glitch (his got deleted after a year of inactivity, they claim it's supposed to be four years, and in part to comply with data privacy laws, I'm guessing in the UK as theirs are pretty stringent), and also said they're going to more or less undo it in this instance, meanwhile Steam wasted no time announcing they don't delete inactive accounts ever, gaining some free brownie points and a decent number of people will probably avoid their store in the future so as not to risk this happening. So yeah, I maintain my point that if they offer NFTs, allow owners to sell them to other people (which is kind of the point of NFTs), and then decide certain instances of NFTs don't have to be honored because they banned that person, they're going to get enough articles like this that they'll feel pressure to walk back such an action.
  - magicalist 5y ago
    So from the post you responded to > The idea that NFTs somehow help in these kind of situations is utter nonsense is accurate. Is your point that NFTs wouldn't hurt the situation? That's a different claim.