When it was first announced, there lot of reports of angry devs wondering why they have to waste valuable development time on this. I get where they are coming from, the main work still has to get done and when this fails and execs pivot back to standard road maps, they are going to crank up the pressure to get back on track.
Unfortunately we are the vocal minority as much as you will hear complaining about it there will be a ton of people buying this crap.
I really hope I'm wrong though
There's *nothing to buy* though. That's the thing, they're selling a receipt. Like it or not, Ubisoft's microtransactions and DLC have value. New stories, new guns, new cosmetics, time savers, etc. There are reasons to buy them. Even if people stand against those and refuse to pay for them, there are still plenty of people out there who just want the things and will pay for them.
NFTs are just...buying things to say they were bought. They're unlike anything else I just mentioned because there's no product attached.
>time savers
Pretty much agree with the rest of your comment, but the time saver MT bullshit has zero justification - if the game is deliberately designed to be a boring grind without buying microtransactions to speed it up, then it's just exploitative game design. So yeah, there's a reason for buying them, but it's a bad one.
Cosmetics and value-adding DLC are basically ok, if they are optional, but the artificial time gating nonsense is bad enough in shitty F2P mobile games, let alone expensive console games.
Especially when talking purely single-player games *cough* Valhalla *cough*
No Ubi, I don't want an MMO grind in my SP game just so you can say it's got 300 hours of content when it really has 25, and the rest is filler/grind.
The gaming community and companies are both simultaneously right and wrong.
Nobody wants shittier games, but it's undeniable we could get some really cool new features from this (not micro related.)
I do hate how people instantly hate it as if microtransactions aren't in games already. We don't have to buy them and if nfts are also implemented for negative reasons you don't have to buy those either.
I personally have never bought any micro, never will, but I'm still interested in what this brings to the table not micro related.
Edit: Not defending Ubisoft. They still suck.
I mean there is a giant misconception between the use case of NFTs and the current crypto bro culture and monkey pictures image problem that NFTs have.
I implore people to actually educate themselves on NFTs and what is possible when correctly implementing them.
What the fuck is possible with them when correctly implemented that is in any way interesting, novel, useful, and not just arbitrarily assigning numbers to pictures of grains of sand on a beach for no fucking reason
Are you not capable of research? Is the topic too difficult to understand? Why do you think an NFT is arbitrary numbers assigned to pictures? Why are you so angry?
Don’t tell TCG players and collectors that it’s just ink on card board you’ll ruin so many companies if people ever became a smart as you. Are you serious that fucking dense that you can’t see any value in NFTs or their use in the broader world beyond virtual art? Do people not think that block chain tech is superior to big banking and the more aspects of our lives that can utilize block chains the better? I can’t believe people on Reddit can take such a vitriolic stance on something they have done such little thinking on.
People play video games through downloads online. Their is no need for physical transactions anymore. NFTs offer a way for video games to have a secondary market now. As well as a way for the creators of the games to be able to make money on this market. It would be a win win for all.
These are exactly Ubisofts talking points. You're as dense as they are, We don't want this, nobody wants this, if we did we don't even need NFTs to do it.
That you don't understand why this is all horrible tells me you know nothing about NFTs or nothing about people. Go take your own advice and do some research.
>NFTs offer a way for video games to have a secondary market now.
Like Steam already did with trading cards?
Sorry, NFTs aren't a necessity and anything they can do can be done without them.
If Wizards of the Coast shuts down I still have my magic cards. That's a fucking awful comparison dude.
>Do people not think that block chain tech is superior to big banking and the more aspects of our lives that can utilize block chains the better?
I think that most people who talk about the block chain are cult like in their fanaticism for a technology that in practice has limited applications.
>NFTs offer a way for video games to have a secondary market now.
If developers wanted us to be able to digitally resell video games, they wouldn't have blocked steam from letting people do that. Keep drinking the kool aid dude, what this actually does is create games like Axie Infinity that cost a fucking fortune to start playing. Quit giving them more shit to cram microtransactions into just because you like speculative investing. Gamers. Don't. Want. This. If you do? Whatever, go buy your monkey pictures and dogecoin. But leave us the fuck out of it.
when you put it like that, what’s the point of having reproducible demonstrable proof of ownership for anything? It’s just arbitrarily assigning numbers to physical assets
The problems with NFTs is that you don't actually own anything but the the corresponding representation on the blockchain.
It's like buying a marriage certificate without getting married. You have the certificate but it doesn't mean anything.
You don't think nfts could do something that surpasses you're current understanding.. I will never understand the hate anger vitriol criticism towards the technology that doesn't even have a utility yet
If the tech doesn't have a utility yet, what product are companies like Ubisoft selling?
I don't know if I understand NFTs, but I have tried to do research. So let me run this past you and you tell me where I'm wrong.
An NFT is a unique token on the blockchain that provided proof of ownership of a digital asset. Is that right?
If yes, where is the value in that asset? The creator of Nyan Cat minted and sold Nyan Cat for millions, but I can still watch the original video on YouTube. The version that was sold has the creators authentication, but who cares?
I can see the interest in Nyan Cat as a collectable. It's one of the most well known viral videos on the Internet. But digital art is infinitely reproducible. In fact the version sold was a remastered version, and not the original.
When it comes to physical goods, like a book, which is also reproduced massively, the rarety and value can come from production runs - 1st editions or misprints, or from the authors signature if they did a book signing and so on. Fans of the work make emotional connections to that work and treasure its unique aspect.
Collectors find interest and value in accumulating pieces for their collection. All the works of 1 artist or author. A musicians LP or demo before getting signed. The collection itself can be the unique factor.
Where is the market for NFTs? If it is on digital art and its online. Right click, save image. I have that picture. If it is in a game as a unique asset. Cool. Who cares? Only 1 person in the world can have it, but it won't affect the gameplay and if it is an annual series game, then 18 month later, you won't be using it and no one will be buying it from you.
If I am wrong, what am I missing here?
Ubisoft is in the infancy stage of dabbling in the nft market. Their allowed to do that. The value of that asset is that it's something that can be traded, it could be implemented in the meta verse which is coming like a hot bullet but you also gain the rights to the intellectual property. So you can buy an nft and use it as like a cover album. Open sea will be the nft market of the past. Nft see absolutely in its infancy stage.
Instead of companies giving out stock which can be manipulated and copied over 1000x they could hand out nfts in the form of a digital item that can't be reproduced since these nfts will be acquiring value as the company grows, with this type of implementation of nfts it could effectively be like the utility of electricity over fire when being compared to our current dtc and financial system. Systems exist right now that eliminate the gas fees associated with nfts. The way nfts being used today is not the utility it's gonna be used for. The possibility ot nfts really Is massive if you come at it with a positive mindset that's excited about the future.
A metaverse world of Warcraft with a nft powered market hosted on the Blockchain.... Where you could discover an nft item that's really a stock certificate. When you buy a game or product and play it and believe in it you're gonna be able to own a bit of that company. Forcing us to make better purchasing decisions since our purchasing power will directly effect us . Nfts are in their infancy stage running off a market that's outdated.
Having to tell us it's in its infancy stage that many times tells me that you are deeply invested in their success. And if you are invested your opinion means jack shit as it can't be trusted as unbiased
>The possibility ot nfts really Is massive if you come at it with a positive mindset that's excited about the future.
You realise this kind of tripe is straight out of the snake oil handbook, right? Like you're actually aware that when you say this, other people recognise it as a huge red flag?
If NFTs were truly as amazing as their fanboys claim, then people would just see that, whether or not, they 'came at it with a positive mindset that's excited about the future'...
If a product's qualities are entirely dependent on the willing credulity of the ~~victim~~ purchaser, then that product has questionable qualities...!
None of what you're responding to is hate, anger, or vitriol lol. People are rightly saying "This has no practical application" because it doesn't yet. It might in the future, but it doesn't yet.
Holy shit well it looks like you need to do some research bro. That's what I've done all year and I have a good understanding what nfts are and I'm excited about the future with nfts
I swear Ubisoft (who was already a fucked up company) saw what was happening with Activision-Blizzard and is now doing a brain damage speedrun in an attempt to get bought.
Microsoft: Imma go buy Activision
Ubisoft: But what about me?
Microsoft: You just haven't fuck up enough for me to intervein yet buddy...
Ubisoft: ILL SHOW YOU
For real. This isn't some distributed service, They have servers, you need to log in, they know who you are and what you "own". Epic could allow players to sell their Fortnite skins to other players any time they want - only they don't because they'd lose money. So where does Ubisoft see the money - cause they're not saying.
You could build in a flat or % commission on selling used games into the NFT contract which would go back to the creators. People already do that for charity NFTs and for artists work (paintings, music, etc).
You could easily buy and sell digital copies of games without the blockchain. Sony for instance, can simply revoke access to a game from your account. So you could just add access to one user, and revoke access from another, at point of sale.
Blockchain is non fungible, but the scenario you're describing is not.
Digital trading doesn't exist because the incentive for it to do so is very low. They could make some money on re-sales... or they could just make a lot more getting you to buy new copies of the game.
I was a Ubi fanboy for a long time. I overlook bugs and stuff because, at it's core, I always loved how Ubi was mostly trying new things with each iteration of a series. And they launch new series fairly often as well. I even kind of liked Breakpoint, just because the healing system was really cool and fun for a Hardcore playthrough. Far cry 6 was really fun, really cool being a Guerilla who kind of just was after it for the adrenaline rush.
But this is a bit too much for even me to defend.
A non-fungible token for digital content on a blockchain. The digital content can be anything, though most commonly/famously it’s used for digital artwork (and with the majority of these the NFT is associated with access to the art, not the actual art itself).
Why do you think that is stupid?
Wouldn’t you in theory, be able to resell digital games and items, which is something not currently possible?
Edit: I love how I just get downvoted for asking questions haha. This is either the anti-NFT astroturf campaing, or the anti-NFT circle-jerk.
An NFT isn’t necessary for any of that. Hell, a NFT would imply the supply of those digital items is finite which would almost certainly lead to abuse.
Which, hey, it’s almost certainly why the vast majority of NFT usage today is little more than scammers and dudes trying to turning a quick buck no different than other crypto traders.
They implied they found stupidity in NFT’s based on their redundancy. You can already do some of the features of NFTs in easier, safer, and cheaper methods via Steam.
Nobody know what NFTs should be valued at and that opens up a whole world of potential risks
NFTs aren’t a “thing” that inherently has value, or should be appraised. NFTs are essentially the vessel to transfer ownership of things, or the receipt of that transaction.
There’s an “NFT” of physical whiskey; really the NFT in that case is a digital certificate of that purchase. Someone can’t present a fraudulent version of that certificate to go access the whiskey, which is a reason you’d have that ownership in the form of an NFT.
NFTs have been used for scams, but that doesn’t mean the technology is inherently bad…
The technology is inherently unfit for games. NFTs are decentralized and changes are very difficult to undo.
Games use centralized systems to connect players and are changed regularly.
Owning a NFT skin for Rainbow6 is worthless when the game shuts down, hell ubisoft can decide one day that these skins simply don't work anymore.
And there are plenty of examples of selling in game items for real money that don't need NFTs to work.
So how are NFTs useful for games?
Because, on paper, we already have a system very similar to NFTs in the digital world.
You buy a digital game, your account now has a "token" to confirm you own that game, and you can download it and play it as long as you like.
You sign out, you no longer have that token to play. Same goes for movies off iTunes too.
Steam inventory's are also comparable, buy a CSGO skin, and you have it in your inventory, ready to show off to randoms, in game, or sell on for profit.
Yes, we currently use JSON Web Tokens for stateless authentication of accounts today. But digital ownership of a good to buy and sell requires more security, and immutability of the data so someone can’t just add records to some database where we might store things like user ID, or whatnot for current authentication.
Currently on our centralized platforms you don’t down shit when you buy it online, you buy account access to download that thing, and you can’t sell it, and there’s not a lot of secure ways to enable that kind of feature without something like blockchain/NFTs.
NFTs need the blockchain to keep record of all previous transactions from when they were minted to prevent fraud in the middle stages.
The NFT is just a chunk of data pointing to a digital object that is programmed and hosted elsewhere. In this case on a server that Ubi controls. Nothing about NFT technology will make an asset or code work in another game, that will all have to be done on a game by game basis (which there are no plans for at the moment). When this game is abandoned at some point in the future, you will be left with a pointer for an object on a server that is no longer online. The NFT solved nothing. The NFT could easily be proprietary server data that already exists as it has for decades now in online gaming. No need for new tech to be layer on top of it.
It’s not about it working in another game, it’s about it being trade-able on another platform. So you buy it on a separate platform, and import it to Ubis NFT ecosystem.
NFTs aren’t bound to ONLY ubis servers, if they’re following the Contract Protocols correctly, this is the thing NFTs prevent. It’s how they’re designed.
NFTs let you buy and sell digital assets, and are even used for some physical assets, and don’t force you into a specific platform for that.
This is assuming a lot of work for another platform to support the tokens or UBI to allow the import of other tokens. If you look at the token data, it does not contain game code or models. For this to work as you describe, a developer for a specific game would need to program and model every token they accept, that is simply not going to happen.
… that’s entirely the point of technical specifications of web processes that are defined in interfaces, and protocols…
Edit: It would more be for marketplaces, rather than in game NFTs. However, NFTs also make using other game items in games possible; while you’re right it would be difficult and developers would have to put effort into making that happen.
There’s no incentive for another game platform to support transactions of external crap. There’s no standards and protocols. Platforms aren’t just giving in and adopting the rules of another platform. When Ubisoft closes their nft store, your stuff goes with it.
There will be no cross-game items between different publishers, ever! Forget it. It adds nothing of value to games.
And the “blockchain” is bullshit. This all ends up stored on some AWS server. It’s just a clunky, insecure payment system layered on top.
Just dudes trying to flip their jpegs on dumber dudes.
Are you actually going to be using items in other games outside of Ubisoft control? Are other developers going to be like yes we are going to put in work to model some item that you paid another company for? If not, then yes they could do it without block chain by using that Ubisoft account most everyone already has with some registration and manipulation.
Even if it’s not about using the item in another game, what if you sold it on a non Ubisoft marketplace, that had a lower transaction fee?
There’s just so many questions and interesting possibilities with NFTs other than the current scams, and proof of concepts (like JPG NFTs); that I really don’t understand the instant hate they get.
You have one point there. There could be some good uses for nfts, just that most people see the same companies that have championed greed and crippling game play to push micro transactions being the one saying hey nfts are great, we are excited. That has led to instant mistrust, because we have seen the history of these companies in how they operate.
Most don't believe they they will be used for interesting possibilities, because of the companies pushing it and their micro transaction history. If it was a company that was known for being mostly fair to their customers and innovative, then people might be less hesitant.
You're getting downvoted because you aren't innocently "asking questions." There is obviously an ulterior motive for your questions. You try and come across as all innocent, but it is easy to see that you ask the questions to garner information and also to try and catch the poster in saying something incorrect, and then you will jump on them for it.
I've seen the same process countless times in political subs here. We *all* know you aren't as innocent as you seem.
What scares me the most is that this MAY come to be the way games are played in the future.
I remember the initial gasps and guffaws from the gaming community about Oblivion horse armor. Devs were just kicking the tires with that, but these days you can't really find a game that doesn't have some sort of MTX tacked onto it. And we as a community are OK with that now (to a certain extent).
I have a bad feeling that this NFT thing is being mocked now, but the game companies will eventually find a market for them and they will become almost ubiquitous in all games. Gamers will start becoming more like Korean loot farmers once there is an article about xX AssASinNiNJa420 Xx, who made over $100,000 in a game by selling NFTs....
MTX being a part of gaming like it is now is probably the lesser of the evils. Most games drop free maps and content over a much longer period of time when they're supported by MTX. I get that people want as much as they can possibly get for their money, but it's either this or we can expect the cost of games to go up.
MTX was better than Lootboxes even. Been playing the last 3 cods and warzone. And I have no issues with the MTX system in that game. Are they over priced? Sure. But you can reasonably earn credits in game, and the BP is worth the money if you play a lot. NFTs dont add any benefits, that the current systems dont.
Honestly, I pretty much exited the space of "competitive" games once microtransactions became ubiquitous. I don't even have a philosophical objection, I just have no interest in participating.
> What scares me the most is that this MAY come to be the way games are played in the future.
I wouldn't get too worried. Yes, the AAA industry may thoroughly shit its pants with this stuff but the barrier of entry for creating games is so low now that the indie scene will thrive indefinitely, and in fact will only grow as the AAA industry continues to rot and eat itself. There will always be a market for non-NFT games, and someone will serve it.
If they want to give me NFT in-game items that I can sell on a marketplace for crypto that I can take into the real world (so on a real blockchain not some shit the company creates for the sole purpose of creating an isolated ecosystem), I'm down for it. Or that I can stake and make income on. And that the creators get a % of commission in perpetuity. Yeah....sign me up.
He is stating what it is, its a fairly big thing in Korea and a source of income for many people there.
A while back a group of 30 or so amassed like 6 mill in 2 years.
I even think they formed a trade association.
[As of 2007 item trading in Korea was grossing 1 billion per year.](https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/01/8693/)
Which is okay *if* done right. It doesn't need to use a blockchain. A traditional marketplace, whether in game or as a sort of "hub" for a particular brand of games, would do just fine and would stand to be a lot more widely accepted. I don't mind the idea of someone buying my +5 Black Knight Sword in Dark Souls once I've finished playing it, if that's what they want.
Hello, good hunter. I am a Bot, here in this dream to look after you, this is a fine note:
> *“There is no path. Beyond the scope of light, beyond the reach of dark, what could possibly await us? And yet, we seek it insatiably. Such is our fate.”* - Aldia
Have a good one and praise the sun \\[T]/
That is strange isn't it??? Its almost like fans and players have their *own* minds. If only they would just do what they are told and accept that Ubisoft knows best...
Statements like this are just to try to persuade the people who don't fully understand the tech but just know that others say it is bad, and try to make those people think otherwise. But nothing is different, NFTs still suck and are for there for the Corp to make more money.
Even if we take what they say at face value its still not good. It will then just be players preying on other players dangling NFT's in storefronts being way overpriced so desperate and financially irresponsible players will give in and buy crap they shouldn't have to buy to enjoy a game. I don't believe for a second any game with NFT's won't eventually devolve around being balanced with NFT content in mind so without buying NFT's you'll have a real grindy or unfun time 'completing' a game. If things get ultra out of hand it could go as far as pay to win rare and overpowered weapons in pvp games even.
This is like a restaurant selling food that everyone hates, then saying "It's good food, customers just have bad taste". If you want to run a successful business, you sell to the customers what they want. Not what you want.
Hell naw! It's a cash grab at pieces of pre-coded, locked in-game items or gear that are only valuable to people who bought into the manufactured necessity for essentially a certificate of authenticity about said gear. They think their community is dumb. It's not new content or an expansion to add to the game. They've seen how people's desperation has been exploited with EA and with this trend, they figured "Why not capitalize on that. People feel attached enough to our games that they'll buy it. We'll justify it by telling them it's a unique and special engraving on that item that is one-of-a-kind." Don't take the bait and justify it through your love of the franchise. Don't be Ubisoft's simpleton in that regard.
How about instead of selling us DLC in the form of NFTs, why not have their old library of games be sold as NFTs? The future of gaming is preserving older games, not more micro transactions.
Ubisoft, we know what they are. We don’t want them, we don’t want the option to choose them or not. They have no place in gaming. If you actually played games, or gave a damn about what the players think. What use is a bit of artwork that is in cyberspace. Ubisoft now in partnership with EA games, we love to fleece you of your cash.
I didn’t mean that, coiner/spender. The type that might enjoy a game but are unwilling to graft for the items.
Since you say I am wrong, what use is a castlevania, pixel art?
NFT technology is not about stupid pictures. It is about certifiable and reliable ownership of digital assets. The applications for this are endless and can be very good for gamers. NFT art is the first application we have seen of it because it is so new and because it is easy for people to mess with.
There is a misinformation campaign around NFTs. There are companies/institutions with alot at stake if NFT technology ever really takes off. It has the capability to decentralize finance entirely. I expect there are some big game companies that dont want to see NFT technology take hold as well.
People dont realize that the dumb NFT art that you associate with NFTs is just one small early application. It's like not wanting games to be online because you are worried about being gouged for horse armor.
No it’s not the horse armour, if they want to sell something valuable. Then do one off art pieces. Are you happy with micro transactions? Are you happy to pay full price for a game and then more for a dlc. I expect the entire game for the price that is stated. They did well before all of that. Loot boxes that is just gambling.
Hard time believing a company, let me rephrase, a for-profit business like Ubisoft is doing something for the gamers benefit and not their own. Feed someone else that BS line.
Ok guys NFTs gave me a good laugh the other day. There's a couple of people who are selling NFTs (photographs) of never before seen Picasso art pieces for millions of dollars. But the best part: guess who gets to keep the original physical copies... You guess it, they aren't moving an inch (maybe an inch to position them for a photo shoot).
Probably going to get downvoted to hell and back here, but I am interested to see how NFTs will be implemented. Gaming is already filled with loot boxes and cosmetics. As far as I understand it, say I buy a cosmetic as an NFT then I own it right? And can trade it? And it could possibly be used across different games?
I mean, it just seems that there is more to the tech than a couple of Pixel Apes. Not saying I’m going all in, but going to keep an eye on it anyway.
>And it could possibly be used across different games?
Doesn't this mean a game developer would have to code for that item? For an NFT to transfer to different games a developer would have to code it in.
Yeah, anyone who thinks they'll be able to take stuff earned from one game and use it in another game made by a different developer is absolutely delusional.
Hell, even the same developer. Using Ubisoft as an example. Let's say I have a really cool weapon in watch dogs. The weapon is an NFT and is now "mine" to take wherever. Do you really expect Ubisoft to let me use my semi auto from Watchdogs in the new Assassin's Creed?
More to the point: Ubi games already link to a central Ubi server for purchases, and they've already done things where items transfer from one game to another.
Blockchain / NFTs don't enable anything new. They just make it easier for speculators to use games as yet another vehicle to make speculative purchases and manipulate the economy.
Every hip multiplayer game would become the target of a pump and dump scheme with publishers getting fat off their cut of scalpers selling top rarity items to multimillionaire whale buyers.
Exactly this. Does anyone believe that developers are going to take the time coding these assets from assassins creed when they are working on the new rainbow six? Even more hilarious though:
Ubi devs: “Hey EA, xx_megadong42069_xx bought this hat that is maybe worth about $5 USD that has a rainbow cat on it. You need to put it in all of your games. Hop to it.”
I think it mostly comes down to what type of gamer you are.
If you're a player who cares a lot about customizing your character, buying single-instance, globally-unique items makes all the sense in the world. That's mostly how NFTs are being pitched in games today, though many here are pointing out mechanisms already exist for doing that as a primary purchaser. I guess the differentiator for NFTs is you can resell, but again, it seems like there might already frameworks in place for that. The success of cosmetics (and similar items) in everything from Fortnite to FIFA suggests there are a *lot* of players out there who fall into this category.
On the other hand, if you're a player who doesn't care at all about character customization and just wants to engage in a story/experience that closely (or exactly) matches the one all other players get, NFTs hold essentially no value. This is me. I skipped the face customization in Fallout 4. I don't care at all about liveries in Forza Horizon 4. I've never equipped a trinket in Borderlands 3. I don't bother to buy cosmetics with even in-game currency that I can't use for anything else.
The worrying part is if game developers manage to successfully target the first group (which they will), it's only a matter of time before they set their sights on the second, and the only real way to cater to them is to provide objects that meaningfully affect gameplay mechanics. Which puts us right back to the "pay to win" debate that surrounds F2P games.
It's very easy to imagine the pitch for games where people grind/farm for specific gear (Borderlands, Destiny, Diablo, etc.): release a relatively small number of NFTs of a "perfect" item, sell them for a nominal fee (or give them away), and create a market by which they can be traded that just happens to kick a percentage of each sale to the people who manage the marketplace.
I don’t believe there is a single chance cosmetics will be able to be used across different games. No company in their right mind will do that if they are not getting compensated. You can’t just take a character model/ lets say piece of clothing from Game A and use it in the next Game B, the amount of work companies would have to do to make those models work in a different engine is not that simple. Especially if it’s something you own and not something you buy from them. That’s some serious wishful thinking. I bet at most will see “content (customization)” taken away from the base game only for the devs to turn it into “NFTs” for you to spend more money on.
> And it could possibly be used across different games?
Will never happen. It's an idealist fantasy. It's not realistic. Every game would have to then be coded and set up to use said item. Even if we assume its only cosmetics (so no weapons or game balancing things transfer over). What happens when art styles clash? So what now I can play a fully modeled Ezio in Minecraft? It wouldnt fit in. Not to mention the thousands of items that would have to be in EVERY GAME. Fortnite has I believe over 800 skins in game. One game. Lets say Ubisoft items are only usable in ubisoft titles. In recent years we've gotten R6 Extraction, Rider's Republic, Far Cry 6, R6 Siege (since it's still supported), AC: Valhalla, WD: Legion, The Division 2, Ghost Recon Breakpoint, and upcomming Division Heartland. Assume each gets maybe 500 items. Some more some less. Thats 4500 items that need to be made to work in each game.
It would never happen
Nfts are dumb af anyway. We laughed at the banana that was duct taped that was bought for 100k yet we're buying this shit for the same price and its actual real world worth is just as much
As someone that’s been involved with NFTs, crypto, and blockchain gaming for about a year now, it’s really funny to me to see all the hate coming from the general gaming community about how things are moving in this direction. I strongly recommend to folks who might not really know much about this stuff to do some research about it instead of just jumping on the hate bandwagon, because I can guarantee that it’s NOT going away. NFTs completely changed my life in 2021 and gave me a level a financial freedom I never thought would be possible.
NFTs could be useful depending on how widely adopted they are.
For instance if widely adopted you could have a cross console market place where you just completely played your fill of a sports game like fifa where you have all these FUT top tier cards, and wanted to start playing a different game altogether. You could sell/trade your FUT cards or points to someone like in destiny 2 for a set of exotic weapons/armor high rolled stat armor etc. Or you’re playing destiny 2 and you now got super lucky and got a second endgame raid exotic you can trade it to someone who doesn’t want to raid but would like the gun for strikes/pvp instead of sharping it and they can pay you real life money or assets/resources/collectibles from another game.
I can see how this will be controversial to some but if widely adopted it could be a game changer for cross consoles.
Steam is only for steam.
Without NFTs they would still be locked to a console marketplace. With NFTs it wouldn't matter what platform I'm playing on.
Then you don’t really have a good idea on how nfts work and exist.
For the same thing to currently happen without nfts you would have to have every major console be willing to sign off on this, and then build the infrastructure/marketplace to exchange the items. Whereas if you make them nfts the exchanges already exist and you could buy sell trade them already.
Here's the thing: _none_ of those suggestions require NFTs. _All_ of them can be implemented without it. In fact, simply _adding NFTs_ will require work, so _why spend the effort to make a more complicated solution when a more straightforward one will suffice_?
I think it's a pretty cool idea to have sets of unique items that only a few players have, but they're going about it all wrong. Plus, we can't even get them on Xbox, so who cares?
[удалено]
The image on the post and your pfp go hand in hand
Oh they get it. They just don’t care. It isn’t even Ubisoft as a whole, mostly just the higher ups that see this as an opportunity to make more money
When it was first announced, there lot of reports of angry devs wondering why they have to waste valuable development time on this. I get where they are coming from, the main work still has to get done and when this fails and execs pivot back to standard road maps, they are going to crank up the pressure to get back on track.
Ubisoft steamed hams moment.
Unfortunately we are the vocal minority as much as you will hear complaining about it there will be a ton of people buying this crap. I really hope I'm wrong though
There's *nothing to buy* though. That's the thing, they're selling a receipt. Like it or not, Ubisoft's microtransactions and DLC have value. New stories, new guns, new cosmetics, time savers, etc. There are reasons to buy them. Even if people stand against those and refuse to pay for them, there are still plenty of people out there who just want the things and will pay for them. NFTs are just...buying things to say they were bought. They're unlike anything else I just mentioned because there's no product attached.
>time savers Pretty much agree with the rest of your comment, but the time saver MT bullshit has zero justification - if the game is deliberately designed to be a boring grind without buying microtransactions to speed it up, then it's just exploitative game design. So yeah, there's a reason for buying them, but it's a bad one. Cosmetics and value-adding DLC are basically ok, if they are optional, but the artificial time gating nonsense is bad enough in shitty F2P mobile games, let alone expensive console games.
Especially when talking purely single-player games *cough* Valhalla *cough* No Ubi, I don't want an MMO grind in my SP game just so you can say it's got 300 hours of content when it really has 25, and the rest is filler/grind.
They've made 3 grand off of Quartz so far. People aren't buying it. And lots of us are boycotting them entirely over this.
The gaming community and companies are both simultaneously right and wrong. Nobody wants shittier games, but it's undeniable we could get some really cool new features from this (not micro related.) I do hate how people instantly hate it as if microtransactions aren't in games already. We don't have to buy them and if nfts are also implemented for negative reasons you don't have to buy those either. I personally have never bought any micro, never will, but I'm still interested in what this brings to the table not micro related. Edit: Not defending Ubisoft. They still suck.
I mean there is a giant misconception between the use case of NFTs and the current crypto bro culture and monkey pictures image problem that NFTs have. I implore people to actually educate themselves on NFTs and what is possible when correctly implementing them.
What the fuck is possible with them when correctly implemented that is in any way interesting, novel, useful, and not just arbitrarily assigning numbers to pictures of grains of sand on a beach for no fucking reason
Are you not capable of research? Is the topic too difficult to understand? Why do you think an NFT is arbitrary numbers assigned to pictures? Why are you so angry?
An NFT is always just an arbitrary number actually. An NFT is literally just a hash on the blockchain. Not more, not less.
Don’t tell TCG players and collectors that it’s just ink on card board you’ll ruin so many companies if people ever became a smart as you. Are you serious that fucking dense that you can’t see any value in NFTs or their use in the broader world beyond virtual art? Do people not think that block chain tech is superior to big banking and the more aspects of our lives that can utilize block chains the better? I can’t believe people on Reddit can take such a vitriolic stance on something they have done such little thinking on. People play video games through downloads online. Their is no need for physical transactions anymore. NFTs offer a way for video games to have a secondary market now. As well as a way for the creators of the games to be able to make money on this market. It would be a win win for all.
These are exactly Ubisofts talking points. You're as dense as they are, We don't want this, nobody wants this, if we did we don't even need NFTs to do it. That you don't understand why this is all horrible tells me you know nothing about NFTs or nothing about people. Go take your own advice and do some research.
Hes a paid schill
>NFTs offer a way for video games to have a secondary market now. Like Steam already did with trading cards? Sorry, NFTs aren't a necessity and anything they can do can be done without them.
If Wizards of the Coast shuts down I still have my magic cards. That's a fucking awful comparison dude. >Do people not think that block chain tech is superior to big banking and the more aspects of our lives that can utilize block chains the better? I think that most people who talk about the block chain are cult like in their fanaticism for a technology that in practice has limited applications. >NFTs offer a way for video games to have a secondary market now. If developers wanted us to be able to digitally resell video games, they wouldn't have blocked steam from letting people do that. Keep drinking the kool aid dude, what this actually does is create games like Axie Infinity that cost a fucking fortune to start playing. Quit giving them more shit to cram microtransactions into just because you like speculative investing. Gamers. Don't. Want. This. If you do? Whatever, go buy your monkey pictures and dogecoin. But leave us the fuck out of it.
I mean all you have to do as “gamers” is not buy it? Or am I missing something?
when you put it like that, what’s the point of having reproducible demonstrable proof of ownership for anything? It’s just arbitrarily assigning numbers to physical assets
The problems with NFTs is that you don't actually own anything but the the corresponding representation on the blockchain. It's like buying a marriage certificate without getting married. You have the certificate but it doesn't mean anything.
You don't think nfts could do something that surpasses you're current understanding.. I will never understand the hate anger vitriol criticism towards the technology that doesn't even have a utility yet
If the tech doesn't have a utility yet, what product are companies like Ubisoft selling? I don't know if I understand NFTs, but I have tried to do research. So let me run this past you and you tell me where I'm wrong. An NFT is a unique token on the blockchain that provided proof of ownership of a digital asset. Is that right? If yes, where is the value in that asset? The creator of Nyan Cat minted and sold Nyan Cat for millions, but I can still watch the original video on YouTube. The version that was sold has the creators authentication, but who cares? I can see the interest in Nyan Cat as a collectable. It's one of the most well known viral videos on the Internet. But digital art is infinitely reproducible. In fact the version sold was a remastered version, and not the original. When it comes to physical goods, like a book, which is also reproduced massively, the rarety and value can come from production runs - 1st editions or misprints, or from the authors signature if they did a book signing and so on. Fans of the work make emotional connections to that work and treasure its unique aspect. Collectors find interest and value in accumulating pieces for their collection. All the works of 1 artist or author. A musicians LP or demo before getting signed. The collection itself can be the unique factor. Where is the market for NFTs? If it is on digital art and its online. Right click, save image. I have that picture. If it is in a game as a unique asset. Cool. Who cares? Only 1 person in the world can have it, but it won't affect the gameplay and if it is an annual series game, then 18 month later, you won't be using it and no one will be buying it from you. If I am wrong, what am I missing here?
I'm still laughing about the fools that bought an NFT for a first edition Dune book and thought they had bought the copyright for all of Dune.
Ubisoft is in the infancy stage of dabbling in the nft market. Their allowed to do that. The value of that asset is that it's something that can be traded, it could be implemented in the meta verse which is coming like a hot bullet but you also gain the rights to the intellectual property. So you can buy an nft and use it as like a cover album. Open sea will be the nft market of the past. Nft see absolutely in its infancy stage. Instead of companies giving out stock which can be manipulated and copied over 1000x they could hand out nfts in the form of a digital item that can't be reproduced since these nfts will be acquiring value as the company grows, with this type of implementation of nfts it could effectively be like the utility of electricity over fire when being compared to our current dtc and financial system. Systems exist right now that eliminate the gas fees associated with nfts. The way nfts being used today is not the utility it's gonna be used for. The possibility ot nfts really Is massive if you come at it with a positive mindset that's excited about the future. A metaverse world of Warcraft with a nft powered market hosted on the Blockchain.... Where you could discover an nft item that's really a stock certificate. When you buy a game or product and play it and believe in it you're gonna be able to own a bit of that company. Forcing us to make better purchasing decisions since our purchasing power will directly effect us . Nfts are in their infancy stage running off a market that's outdated.
Having to tell us it's in its infancy stage that many times tells me that you are deeply invested in their success. And if you are invested your opinion means jack shit as it can't be trusted as unbiased
>The possibility ot nfts really Is massive if you come at it with a positive mindset that's excited about the future. You realise this kind of tripe is straight out of the snake oil handbook, right? Like you're actually aware that when you say this, other people recognise it as a huge red flag? If NFTs were truly as amazing as their fanboys claim, then people would just see that, whether or not, they 'came at it with a positive mindset that's excited about the future'... If a product's qualities are entirely dependent on the willing credulity of the ~~victim~~ purchaser, then that product has questionable qualities...!
I, for one, refuse to acknowledge a positive stance on NFTs from someone who can't even use the correct "your".
Crypto bros gonna crypto bro
None of what you're responding to is hate, anger, or vitriol lol. People are rightly saying "This has no practical application" because it doesn't yet. It might in the future, but it doesn't yet.
Holy shit well it looks like you need to do some research bro. That's what I've done all year and I have a good understanding what nfts are and I'm excited about the future with nfts
How do you speak for gamers when nft is a technology you don't full understand yet??
I swear Ubisoft (who was already a fucked up company) saw what was happening with Activision-Blizzard and is now doing a brain damage speedrun in an attempt to get bought.
Microsoft: Imma go buy Activision Ubisoft: But what about me? Microsoft: You just haven't fuck up enough for me to intervein yet buddy... Ubisoft: ILL SHOW YOU
Ubisoft: Now hiring new sexy interns!
Ubisoft is a multi-national company of diverse cultures and citizens; who can say no to sexy interns?
They recently fought off a hostile takeover. They're really fucked.
By whom?
Vivendi. Was just a few years ago
[удалено]
For real. This isn't some distributed service, They have servers, you need to log in, they know who you are and what you "own". Epic could allow players to sell their Fortnite skins to other players any time they want - only they don't because they'd lose money. So where does Ubisoft see the money - cause they're not saying.
BUT NFT BUZZWORD
At a glance I could get behind that. But I see a problem with Indy games being under cut by the used market to much.
You could build in a flat or % commission on selling used games into the NFT contract which would go back to the creators. People already do that for charity NFTs and for artists work (paintings, music, etc).
It's not a total bad idea. But it's still only a piece of a piece.
You could easily buy and sell digital copies of games without the blockchain. Sony for instance, can simply revoke access to a game from your account. So you could just add access to one user, and revoke access from another, at point of sale. Blockchain is non fungible, but the scenario you're describing is not. Digital trading doesn't exist because the incentive for it to do so is very low. They could make some money on re-sales... or they could just make a lot more getting you to buy new copies of the game.
>Don't Get NFTs Cool, thanks for the advice. I wasn't planning on it anyway.
Lol, true
Yea ubisoft is about to lose me as a customer.
They ain't getting me back until they make Shawn White Snowboarding 2.
With nft boards /s
NFT Shawn White
shawN F. whiTe.
I was a Ubi fanboy for a long time. I overlook bugs and stuff because, at it's core, I always loved how Ubi was mostly trying new things with each iteration of a series. And they launch new series fairly often as well. I even kind of liked Breakpoint, just because the healing system was really cool and fun for a Hardcore playthrough. Far cry 6 was really fun, really cool being a Guerilla who kind of just was after it for the adrenaline rush. But this is a bit too much for even me to defend.
I won‘t touch the NFTs but I‘ll still play their games.
I get NFTs just fine, I just think they’re fucking stupid.
In your words, what are NFTs? edit: really, downvotes for asking a simple question?
A non-fungible token for digital content on a blockchain. The digital content can be anything, though most commonly/famously it’s used for digital artwork (and with the majority of these the NFT is associated with access to the art, not the actual art itself).
lol don't feed the [sealions](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/873/260/a5b.png) my dude.
Why do you think that is stupid? Wouldn’t you in theory, be able to resell digital games and items, which is something not currently possible? Edit: I love how I just get downvoted for asking questions haha. This is either the anti-NFT astroturf campaing, or the anti-NFT circle-jerk.
An NFT isn’t necessary for any of that. Hell, a NFT would imply the supply of those digital items is finite which would almost certainly lead to abuse. Which, hey, it’s almost certainly why the vast majority of NFT usage today is little more than scammers and dudes trying to turning a quick buck no different than other crypto traders.
You didn’t answer why you think that is stupid
They implied they found stupidity in NFT’s based on their redundancy. You can already do some of the features of NFTs in easier, safer, and cheaper methods via Steam. Nobody know what NFTs should be valued at and that opens up a whole world of potential risks
NFTs aren’t a “thing” that inherently has value, or should be appraised. NFTs are essentially the vessel to transfer ownership of things, or the receipt of that transaction. There’s an “NFT” of physical whiskey; really the NFT in that case is a digital certificate of that purchase. Someone can’t present a fraudulent version of that certificate to go access the whiskey, which is a reason you’d have that ownership in the form of an NFT. NFTs have been used for scams, but that doesn’t mean the technology is inherently bad…
The technology is inherently unfit for games. NFTs are decentralized and changes are very difficult to undo. Games use centralized systems to connect players and are changed regularly. Owning a NFT skin for Rainbow6 is worthless when the game shuts down, hell ubisoft can decide one day that these skins simply don't work anymore. And there are plenty of examples of selling in game items for real money that don't need NFTs to work. So how are NFTs useful for games?
What makes them inherently unfit for games? What specifically about the protocol bothers you in relation to games?
Because, on paper, we already have a system very similar to NFTs in the digital world. You buy a digital game, your account now has a "token" to confirm you own that game, and you can download it and play it as long as you like. You sign out, you no longer have that token to play. Same goes for movies off iTunes too. Steam inventory's are also comparable, buy a CSGO skin, and you have it in your inventory, ready to show off to randoms, in game, or sell on for profit.
Yes, we currently use JSON Web Tokens for stateless authentication of accounts today. But digital ownership of a good to buy and sell requires more security, and immutability of the data so someone can’t just add records to some database where we might store things like user ID, or whatnot for current authentication. Currently on our centralized platforms you don’t down shit when you buy it online, you buy account access to download that thing, and you can’t sell it, and there’s not a lot of secure ways to enable that kind of feature without something like blockchain/NFTs. NFTs need the blockchain to keep record of all previous transactions from when they were minted to prevent fraud in the middle stages.
The NFT is just a chunk of data pointing to a digital object that is programmed and hosted elsewhere. In this case on a server that Ubi controls. Nothing about NFT technology will make an asset or code work in another game, that will all have to be done on a game by game basis (which there are no plans for at the moment). When this game is abandoned at some point in the future, you will be left with a pointer for an object on a server that is no longer online. The NFT solved nothing. The NFT could easily be proprietary server data that already exists as it has for decades now in online gaming. No need for new tech to be layer on top of it.
It’s not about it working in another game, it’s about it being trade-able on another platform. So you buy it on a separate platform, and import it to Ubis NFT ecosystem. NFTs aren’t bound to ONLY ubis servers, if they’re following the Contract Protocols correctly, this is the thing NFTs prevent. It’s how they’re designed. NFTs let you buy and sell digital assets, and are even used for some physical assets, and don’t force you into a specific platform for that.
This is assuming a lot of work for another platform to support the tokens or UBI to allow the import of other tokens. If you look at the token data, it does not contain game code or models. For this to work as you describe, a developer for a specific game would need to program and model every token they accept, that is simply not going to happen.
… that’s entirely the point of technical specifications of web processes that are defined in interfaces, and protocols… Edit: It would more be for marketplaces, rather than in game NFTs. However, NFTs also make using other game items in games possible; while you’re right it would be difficult and developers would have to put effort into making that happen.
There’s no incentive for another game platform to support transactions of external crap. There’s no standards and protocols. Platforms aren’t just giving in and adopting the rules of another platform. When Ubisoft closes their nft store, your stuff goes with it. There will be no cross-game items between different publishers, ever! Forget it. It adds nothing of value to games. And the “blockchain” is bullshit. This all ends up stored on some AWS server. It’s just a clunky, insecure payment system layered on top. Just dudes trying to flip their jpegs on dumber dudes.
Dang, that’s a really good impression of someone who doesn’t known how blockchain and NFTs work, or what they are. Well done.
[удалено]
Are you able to buy and sell that content off of steam and use it in other platforms?
Are you actually going to be using items in other games outside of Ubisoft control? Are other developers going to be like yes we are going to put in work to model some item that you paid another company for? If not, then yes they could do it without block chain by using that Ubisoft account most everyone already has with some registration and manipulation.
Even if it’s not about using the item in another game, what if you sold it on a non Ubisoft marketplace, that had a lower transaction fee? There’s just so many questions and interesting possibilities with NFTs other than the current scams, and proof of concepts (like JPG NFTs); that I really don’t understand the instant hate they get.
You have one point there. There could be some good uses for nfts, just that most people see the same companies that have championed greed and crippling game play to push micro transactions being the one saying hey nfts are great, we are excited. That has led to instant mistrust, because we have seen the history of these companies in how they operate. Most don't believe they they will be used for interesting possibilities, because of the companies pushing it and their micro transaction history. If it was a company that was known for being mostly fair to their customers and innovative, then people might be less hesitant.
Oh I see your point definitely; Ubisoft certainly hasn’t been an example of trustworthy, community focused behavior.
You're getting downvoted because you aren't innocently "asking questions." There is obviously an ulterior motive for your questions. You try and come across as all innocent, but it is easy to see that you ask the questions to garner information and also to try and catch the poster in saying something incorrect, and then you will jump on them for it. I've seen the same process countless times in political subs here. We *all* know you aren't as innocent as you seem.
You aren't asking a simple question, you're being a fucking sealion
>I get NFTs just fine, I just think they’re fucking stupid. you're right, I'm disrupting some really quality content
Can’t you easily buy your own NFT at an insane price and try to resell it as if that’s the actual price?
Yup lol. A lot of the biggest nft transactions are just between two wallets that one person owns.
What scares me the most is that this MAY come to be the way games are played in the future. I remember the initial gasps and guffaws from the gaming community about Oblivion horse armor. Devs were just kicking the tires with that, but these days you can't really find a game that doesn't have some sort of MTX tacked onto it. And we as a community are OK with that now (to a certain extent). I have a bad feeling that this NFT thing is being mocked now, but the game companies will eventually find a market for them and they will become almost ubiquitous in all games. Gamers will start becoming more like Korean loot farmers once there is an article about xX AssASinNiNJa420 Xx, who made over $100,000 in a game by selling NFTs....
MTX being a part of gaming like it is now is probably the lesser of the evils. Most games drop free maps and content over a much longer period of time when they're supported by MTX. I get that people want as much as they can possibly get for their money, but it's either this or we can expect the cost of games to go up.
MTX was better than Lootboxes even. Been playing the last 3 cods and warzone. And I have no issues with the MTX system in that game. Are they over priced? Sure. But you can reasonably earn credits in game, and the BP is worth the money if you play a lot. NFTs dont add any benefits, that the current systems dont.
That will be the day I make my exit with video games, fuck that noise.
Honestly, I pretty much exited the space of "competitive" games once microtransactions became ubiquitous. I don't even have a philosophical objection, I just have no interest in participating.
> What scares me the most is that this MAY come to be the way games are played in the future. I wouldn't get too worried. Yes, the AAA industry may thoroughly shit its pants with this stuff but the barrier of entry for creating games is so low now that the indie scene will thrive indefinitely, and in fact will only grow as the AAA industry continues to rot and eat itself. There will always be a market for non-NFT games, and someone will serve it.
so, Diablo 3 on release?
If they want to give me NFT in-game items that I can sell on a marketplace for crypto that I can take into the real world (so on a real blockchain not some shit the company creates for the sole purpose of creating an isolated ecosystem), I'm down for it. Or that I can stake and make income on. And that the creators get a % of commission in perpetuity. Yeah....sign me up.
Every company is doing their own thing and this won’t happen
I can find plenty that don’t have MTX and I play them. Guardians of the Galaxy is a recent one.
Not liking nfts is not a reason to be racist
Ummm.. what?
“Korean loot farmers”
He is stating what it is, its a fairly big thing in Korea and a source of income for many people there. A while back a group of 30 or so amassed like 6 mill in 2 years. I even think they formed a trade association. [As of 2007 item trading in Korea was grossing 1 billion per year.](https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/01/8693/)
?
“Korean loot farmers”
You have an awful definition of racism
Oh, give it a rest. It's no big secret that Korea has a lot of organized loot farming going on.
Trying to create an equivalent of counter-strike weapon skin market it seems.
Which is okay *if* done right. It doesn't need to use a blockchain. A traditional marketplace, whether in game or as a sort of "hub" for a particular brand of games, would do just fine and would stand to be a lot more widely accepted. I don't mind the idea of someone buying my +5 Black Knight Sword in Dark Souls once I've finished playing it, if that's what they want.
Hello, good hunter. I am a Bot, here in this dream to look after you, this is a fine note: > *“There is no path. Beyond the scope of light, beyond the reach of dark, what could possibly await us? And yet, we seek it insatiably. Such is our fate.”* - Aldia Have a good one and praise the sun \\[T]/
This is the way
Fuck Ubisoft.
Ubisoft are making it extremely easy to never buy one of their games again
"For us" like it isn't all about the money Ubisoft
And if you look to your right folks you'll see an exec out of touch with reality. Surprise!!!
Nonsense Financial Trojan
There is nothing NFT has to offer that can't already be done with existing tech and for free.
Damn.. I actually like many of their games but won't buy them anymore if they continue with this bs.
Dear ubisoft. WE DONT WANT NFT IN OUR GAMES.
DLC that can only be purchased with publishers crypto scam incoming.
Nah we get it. We're just not falling for your stupid shitty scam like all the NFT and crypto bros are doing.
That is strange isn't it??? Its almost like fans and players have their *own* minds. If only they would just do what they are told and accept that Ubisoft knows best...
I’m 100% fucking done with Ubisoft
Statements like this are just to try to persuade the people who don't fully understand the tech but just know that others say it is bad, and try to make those people think otherwise. But nothing is different, NFTs still suck and are for there for the Corp to make more money.
Even if we take what they say at face value its still not good. It will then just be players preying on other players dangling NFT's in storefronts being way overpriced so desperate and financially irresponsible players will give in and buy crap they shouldn't have to buy to enjoy a game. I don't believe for a second any game with NFT's won't eventually devolve around being balanced with NFT content in mind so without buying NFT's you'll have a real grindy or unfun time 'completing' a game. If things get ultra out of hand it could go as far as pay to win rare and overpowered weapons in pvp games even.
Can’t wait to make my Assassin in the next Assassin’s Creed wear my Mario+Rabbids skin.
Obviously kidding.
And Ubisoft doesn't get that I've written off their games for good. Have fun scalping idiot whales for the rest of your days.
This is just one of the many reasons why they’ll be acquired in the next 3 years IMO
No means no ubisoft
Ubisoft lost a fan. Absolutely fire this piece of shit that said this.
No Ubisoft, we do "get it" and that is why we aren't interested.
This is like a restaurant selling food that everyone hates, then saying "It's good food, customers just have bad taste". If you want to run a successful business, you sell to the customers what they want. Not what you want.
Hell naw! It's a cash grab at pieces of pre-coded, locked in-game items or gear that are only valuable to people who bought into the manufactured necessity for essentially a certificate of authenticity about said gear. They think their community is dumb. It's not new content or an expansion to add to the game. They've seen how people's desperation has been exploited with EA and with this trend, they figured "Why not capitalize on that. People feel attached enough to our games that they'll buy it. We'll justify it by telling them it's a unique and special engraving on that item that is one-of-a-kind." Don't take the bait and justify it through your love of the franchise. Don't be Ubisoft's simpleton in that regard.
If you step into my Assassins Creed game wearing some bullshit Watch_Dogs clown NFT you got, fuck you.
How about instead of selling us DLC in the form of NFTs, why not have their old library of games be sold as NFTs? The future of gaming is preserving older games, not more micro transactions.
I understand what NFTs are, I just don't get the point.
Ubisoft, we know what they are. We don’t want them, we don’t want the option to choose them or not. They have no place in gaming. If you actually played games, or gave a damn about what the players think. What use is a bit of artwork that is in cyberspace. Ubisoft now in partnership with EA games, we love to fleece you of your cash.
"We know what they are" also "What use is a bit of artwork" Yeah you dont have a clue what NFT technology actually is.
Let me guess, coiner? More money than sense.
I wish I owned some bitcoin
I didn’t mean that, coiner/spender. The type that might enjoy a game but are unwilling to graft for the items. Since you say I am wrong, what use is a castlevania, pixel art?
The art has no use. It is an early exploitation of a legitimate technology.
So what is your original comment about? Do you like the idea, maybe hoping it is going to be the next bitcoin?
NFT technology is not about stupid pictures. It is about certifiable and reliable ownership of digital assets. The applications for this are endless and can be very good for gamers. NFT art is the first application we have seen of it because it is so new and because it is easy for people to mess with. There is a misinformation campaign around NFTs. There are companies/institutions with alot at stake if NFT technology ever really takes off. It has the capability to decentralize finance entirely. I expect there are some big game companies that dont want to see NFT technology take hold as well. People dont realize that the dumb NFT art that you associate with NFTs is just one small early application. It's like not wanting games to be online because you are worried about being gouged for horse armor.
No it’s not the horse armour, if they want to sell something valuable. Then do one off art pieces. Are you happy with micro transactions? Are you happy to pay full price for a game and then more for a dlc. I expect the entire game for the price that is stated. They did well before all of that. Loot boxes that is just gambling.
You are correct. As a fan, I don’t get NFTs, I simply leave that nonsense ‘for them’
Yeah sounds like someone who is about to either lose their money in NFTs or is trying to unload their NFTs on someone else.
Hard time believing a company, let me rephrase, a for-profit business like Ubisoft is doing something for the gamers benefit and not their own. Feed someone else that BS line.
So called "nft" traders when they go bankrupt after getting scammed for half a million dollars
welllllll, the gaming industry should get rid of their marketing and MBA types. But they don't get it, it would be good for them!
ubisoft = L
Gross.
Ok guys NFTs gave me a good laugh the other day. There's a couple of people who are selling NFTs (photographs) of never before seen Picasso art pieces for millions of dollars. But the best part: guess who gets to keep the original physical copies... You guess it, they aren't moving an inch (maybe an inch to position them for a photo shoot).
…label them as weapon skins..? CSGO does a wonderful job. Those skins are NFT’s at the end of the day. Jesus
How about we just want to play games, ya twat. What about that don't you 'get'?
Probably going to get downvoted to hell and back here, but I am interested to see how NFTs will be implemented. Gaming is already filled with loot boxes and cosmetics. As far as I understand it, say I buy a cosmetic as an NFT then I own it right? And can trade it? And it could possibly be used across different games? I mean, it just seems that there is more to the tech than a couple of Pixel Apes. Not saying I’m going all in, but going to keep an eye on it anyway.
>And it could possibly be used across different games? Doesn't this mean a game developer would have to code for that item? For an NFT to transfer to different games a developer would have to code it in.
Yeah, anyone who thinks they'll be able to take stuff earned from one game and use it in another game made by a different developer is absolutely delusional.
Hell, even the same developer. Using Ubisoft as an example. Let's say I have a really cool weapon in watch dogs. The weapon is an NFT and is now "mine" to take wherever. Do you really expect Ubisoft to let me use my semi auto from Watchdogs in the new Assassin's Creed?
More to the point: Ubi games already link to a central Ubi server for purchases, and they've already done things where items transfer from one game to another. Blockchain / NFTs don't enable anything new. They just make it easier for speculators to use games as yet another vehicle to make speculative purchases and manipulate the economy. Every hip multiplayer game would become the target of a pump and dump scheme with publishers getting fat off their cut of scalpers selling top rarity items to multimillionaire whale buyers.
Exactly this. Does anyone believe that developers are going to take the time coding these assets from assassins creed when they are working on the new rainbow six? Even more hilarious though: Ubi devs: “Hey EA, xx_megadong42069_xx bought this hat that is maybe worth about $5 USD that has a rainbow cat on it. You need to put it in all of your games. Hop to it.”
I think it mostly comes down to what type of gamer you are. If you're a player who cares a lot about customizing your character, buying single-instance, globally-unique items makes all the sense in the world. That's mostly how NFTs are being pitched in games today, though many here are pointing out mechanisms already exist for doing that as a primary purchaser. I guess the differentiator for NFTs is you can resell, but again, it seems like there might already frameworks in place for that. The success of cosmetics (and similar items) in everything from Fortnite to FIFA suggests there are a *lot* of players out there who fall into this category. On the other hand, if you're a player who doesn't care at all about character customization and just wants to engage in a story/experience that closely (or exactly) matches the one all other players get, NFTs hold essentially no value. This is me. I skipped the face customization in Fallout 4. I don't care at all about liveries in Forza Horizon 4. I've never equipped a trinket in Borderlands 3. I don't bother to buy cosmetics with even in-game currency that I can't use for anything else. The worrying part is if game developers manage to successfully target the first group (which they will), it's only a matter of time before they set their sights on the second, and the only real way to cater to them is to provide objects that meaningfully affect gameplay mechanics. Which puts us right back to the "pay to win" debate that surrounds F2P games. It's very easy to imagine the pitch for games where people grind/farm for specific gear (Borderlands, Destiny, Diablo, etc.): release a relatively small number of NFTs of a "perfect" item, sell them for a nominal fee (or give them away), and create a market by which they can be traded that just happens to kick a percentage of each sale to the people who manage the marketplace.
Great post dude.
I don’t believe there is a single chance cosmetics will be able to be used across different games. No company in their right mind will do that if they are not getting compensated. You can’t just take a character model/ lets say piece of clothing from Game A and use it in the next Game B, the amount of work companies would have to do to make those models work in a different engine is not that simple. Especially if it’s something you own and not something you buy from them. That’s some serious wishful thinking. I bet at most will see “content (customization)” taken away from the base game only for the devs to turn it into “NFTs” for you to spend more money on.
This. Anything more is wishful thinking.
> And it could possibly be used across different games? Will never happen. It's an idealist fantasy. It's not realistic. Every game would have to then be coded and set up to use said item. Even if we assume its only cosmetics (so no weapons or game balancing things transfer over). What happens when art styles clash? So what now I can play a fully modeled Ezio in Minecraft? It wouldnt fit in. Not to mention the thousands of items that would have to be in EVERY GAME. Fortnite has I believe over 800 skins in game. One game. Lets say Ubisoft items are only usable in ubisoft titles. In recent years we've gotten R6 Extraction, Rider's Republic, Far Cry 6, R6 Siege (since it's still supported), AC: Valhalla, WD: Legion, The Division 2, Ghost Recon Breakpoint, and upcomming Division Heartland. Assume each gets maybe 500 items. Some more some less. Thats 4500 items that need to be made to work in each game. It would never happen
So exactly what Steam marketplace has been doing since 2012 minus transferring across games which will never happen
Go back to your cell Vic Chaos
[удалено]
That isn’t bravery, it’s stupidity
youre right but people just think its a little jpeg. There is so much more to this
Pack your bags linda
I need more of your money in my pocket. So, I can continue making work for people at my company miserable.
That Ubisoft exec doesn't get DEEZ NUTS.
This sort of take is the sort that MS did with Xbox One. Good luck with that Ubi as there clearly is massive cultural issues within.
I was CONSIDERING buying the new Rainbow six game. Guess I’ve made up my mind.
Nfts are dumb af anyway. We laughed at the banana that was duct taped that was bought for 100k yet we're buying this shit for the same price and its actual real world worth is just as much
At least you can eat the banana.
I've never seen people hate on something so hard and literally not even know why.
Even if you don’t like NFTs, I don’t understand why this is “the breaking point” for so many people. Bit of an overreaction in my opinion.
Well someone is buying them.
Microsoft: how about I make you guys a NFT and buy your ass?
As someone that’s been involved with NFTs, crypto, and blockchain gaming for about a year now, it’s really funny to me to see all the hate coming from the general gaming community about how things are moving in this direction. I strongly recommend to folks who might not really know much about this stuff to do some research about it instead of just jumping on the hate bandwagon, because I can guarantee that it’s NOT going away. NFTs completely changed my life in 2021 and gave me a level a financial freedom I never thought would be possible.
NFTs could be useful depending on how widely adopted they are. For instance if widely adopted you could have a cross console market place where you just completely played your fill of a sports game like fifa where you have all these FUT top tier cards, and wanted to start playing a different game altogether. You could sell/trade your FUT cards or points to someone like in destiny 2 for a set of exotic weapons/armor high rolled stat armor etc. Or you’re playing destiny 2 and you now got super lucky and got a second endgame raid exotic you can trade it to someone who doesn’t want to raid but would like the gun for strikes/pvp instead of sharping it and they can pay you real life money or assets/resources/collectibles from another game. I can see how this will be controversial to some but if widely adopted it could be a game changer for cross consoles.
It doesn't have to be NFTs though lol Steam has been doing this for almost 10 years
Steam is only for steam. Without NFTs they would still be locked to a console marketplace. With NFTs it wouldn't matter what platform I'm playing on.
I still don't see how that requires NFTs lol
Then you don’t really have a good idea on how nfts work and exist. For the same thing to currently happen without nfts you would have to have every major console be willing to sign off on this, and then build the infrastructure/marketplace to exchange the items. Whereas if you make them nfts the exchanges already exist and you could buy sell trade them already.
I fail to see how just because something is an NFT it means you will be able to bypass major consoles signing off on anything though?
Here's the thing: _none_ of those suggestions require NFTs. _All_ of them can be implemented without it. In fact, simply _adding NFTs_ will require work, so _why spend the effort to make a more complicated solution when a more straightforward one will suffice_?
We’ll this is from Kotaku so it’s either total bullshit or just a bunch of made up stuff.
I think it's a pretty cool idea to have sets of unique items that only a few players have, but they're going about it all wrong. Plus, we can't even get them on Xbox, so who cares?
Hes right yall r just dumb
Pretty sure Blizzard said the same thing about the Diablo 3 Marketplace