4 ms·

Ubisoft is already making NFTs (for cosmetics in this case; same tech though) where they control who can own or transfer NFTs. So...no., this doesn't help. Ubi

by Lazare 5y ago

Ubisoft is already making NFTs (for cosmetics in this case; same tech though) where they control who can own or transfer NFTs. So...no., this doesn't help. Ubisoft doesn't need NFTs to let people transfer their games to a new account, and they don't need to let people transfer their games just because they've given you a fancy commemorative memento of the time you gave them money in exchange for not owning a game.

cinntaile 5y ago
You didn't read what I wrote, I'll try and rephrase it. I am talking about NFTs where you as the owner of the NFT control who you can transfer it to, I explicitly mentioned this. If you can do this, then it can be a solution to the current problem. Because then you simply transfer your ownership rights to your new account.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  Ubisoft is under no obligation to honour your transfer of ownership of the NFT. They can just stop accepting it as valid any time they like.
  - cinntaile 5y ago
    This is true. The assumption I make is that we would be living in a scenario where they would honour the ownership transfer. I'm just saying it's possible for NFTs to work like this, not that this will actually happen.
    - user-the-name 5y ago
      If you are living under the assumption that they would honour ownership, you don't need NFTs in the first place. The whole thing can be much more efficiently implemented without them.
    - acdha 5y ago
      That's the problem, though: if they wanted to allow this, it's easy to do — for example, GOG has a Steam import feature but relatively few publishers allow their content to be used that way. Spending an enormous amount of money switching to NFTs would just be a distraction from the business reasons why those publishers are blocking that capability.
- chipotle_coyote 5y ago
  If "the current problem" is "how do I, the player, get around this company's ban on my account," sure. But from Ubisoft's perspective, "the current problem" is "we banned this player and want them to stay banned."
  - cinntaile 5y ago
    I guess it depends on how you would implement such a system. They could have a ban on the game ownership NFT too, but it doesn't have to work like that. Banning is usually done on the account level, it's entirely possible that the company keeps track of your hardware fingerprint so you can't just go and buy a new game. In this case it's probably just a weird edge case that triggered the account deletion, I think he'll get his account back.
- AniseAbyss 5y ago
  Ubisoft or any other company for that matter doesn't want people to trade their games, DLC or accounts. They killed the used market they aren't going to bring it back.

by Lazare 5y ago

cinntaile 5y ago

You didn't read what I wrote, I'll try and rephrase it. I am talking about NFTs where you as the owner of the NFT control who you can transfer it to, I explicitly mentioned this. If you can do this, then it can be a solution to the current problem. Because then you simply transfer your ownership rights to your new account.

user-the-name 5y ago
Ubisoft is under no obligation to honour your transfer of ownership of the NFT. They can just stop accepting it as valid any time they like.
- cinntaile 5y ago
  This is true. The assumption I make is that we would be living in a scenario where they would honour the ownership transfer. I'm just saying it's possible for NFTs to work like this, not that this will actually happen.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    If you are living under the assumption that they would honour ownership, you don't need NFTs in the first place. The whole thing can be much more efficiently implemented without them.
  - acdha 5y ago
    That's the problem, though: if they wanted to allow this, it's easy to do — for example, GOG has a Steam import feature but relatively few publishers allow their content to be used that way. Spending an enormous amount of money switching to NFTs would just be a distraction from the business reasons why those publishers are blocking that capability.
chipotle_coyote 5y ago
If "the current problem" is "how do I, the player, get around this company's ban on my account," sure. But from Ubisoft's perspective, "the current problem" is "we banned this player and want them to stay banned."
- cinntaile 5y ago
  I guess it depends on how you would implement such a system. They could have a ban on the game ownership NFT too, but it doesn't have to work like that. Banning is usually done on the account level, it's entirely possible that the company keeps track of your hardware fingerprint so you can't just go and buy a new game. In this case it's probably just a weird edge case that triggered the account deletion, I think he'll get his account back.
AniseAbyss 5y ago
Ubisoft or any other company for that matter doesn't want people to trade their games, DLC or accounts. They killed the used market they aren't going to bring it back.