Top
320°

Ubisoft's NFT promise: 'We won't force our players to use Quartz'

In an exclusive interview with Finder, VP of Strategic Innovations Lab, Nicolas Pouard, spells out the future of Ubisoft's NFTs

Read Full Story >>
finder.com.au
The story is too old to be commented.
SlappingOysters119d ago

NFTs are coming whether we like it or not. If they keep it separate to everything we do already as they say here, then perhaps it won't be too bad.

-Foxtrot119d ago

“ it won't be too bad”

People thought the same with DLC, MTs and Loot Boxes

It’s like a weed, if you don’t pull it out as soon as it sprouts the entire garden is overrun before you know it.

TheColbertinator118d ago

I remember we had to complain night and day to eliminate online passes. If the consumers stand strong, the publishers will back off.

LordoftheCritics118d ago

Most people I know don't understand the concept of ''a stitch in time saves nine''

jznrpg118d ago

@ The Colbertinator online passes just switched names to battle passes . See Halo -

Christopher117d ago

They'll keep it separate because in games it would be the exact same as DLC since it would never transfer outside of the game.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 117d ago
CrimsonWing69118d ago

If there's enough whales you better believe this will seep into games. What if they started making actual levels or "deleted scenes" in games as NFT only?

Notellin118d ago

They could try that route and I'm sure it would fail spectacularly. Nintendo did something very similar with the Skyward Sword Amiibo.

Gamers ate that up.

We shall see but as long as it's on an environmentally friendly blockchain it won't matter to me. I've never spent money on a micro-transaction for a video game and never will. So this will impact me very little regardless.

FPS_D3TH118d ago (Edited 118d ago )

@Notellin that’s the Nintendo simp mentality. They can never do wrong. How can it have no negative impact if what you’re suggesting could potentially come true though? Your experiences will be limited or gated by this bs

nommers117d ago

DLC is already like that. Fighting game season passes, repackaged chapters of games...when CDR was still in everyone's good graces you don't think they had the idea of repackaged content? They did it the smart way where they gave a lot of content in their DLC, but they made everyone think it wasn't taken out to begin with even though we will never really know.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 117d ago
LordoftheCritics118d ago (Edited 118d ago )

Games are already designed around monetization. Adding NFT will completely affect the philosophy and underlying core designs of games.

Just wait and see.

Games went from fun to chore to now work. Transaction and money will be the new future of gaming. In that mess new companies, new devs and new artists will show up with actual games. I look forward to those.

FlavorLav01118d ago (Edited 118d ago )

DLC, MTs, and pre-orders have already changed the core design of games. Hide coveted content for the purpose of adding additional purchases to our games instead of full fledged solid experiences with deserving sequels coming later. Instead we get grand promises, unfinished products, and additional “purchase options”. Pretty disgusting if you remember what games used to be about around the PS2, GameCube, and OG Xbox era.

Notellin118d ago (Edited 118d ago )

Please, people are already doing exactly what NFTs will provide according to you. Millions are playing games like Destiny 2 and Apex where you play the game like a job grinding cosmetics.

Nothing will change but the acronym from MTX to NFT. The systems already suck and you guys eat them up daily.

LordoftheCritics117d ago (Edited 117d ago )

@Notellin

''Please, people are already doing exactly what NFTs will provide according to you. Millions are playing games like Destiny 2 and Apex where you play the game like a job grinding cosmetics.''

This is what people are doing with no money involved.

Now imagine a money incentive??? Realistic levels of FOMO??

You have no clue

MetroidFREAK21118d ago

No, they are just bad. Plain and simple

Kurt Russell118d ago

I agree with your first sentence, they're coming whether we like it or not.
But not your second sentence, it will be bad.

DarXyde118d ago Show
staticall118d ago

There are no positives from NFTs though. You have to pay for them with real money either way (buying new or re-sale). They don't guarantee you anything. As soon as the coin, exchange or the game are closed down, there goes your NFTs out of the window.

And it will be bad. It'll be like microtransactions, nowadays first and usually the only working thing in games is that damned in-game store.
It might be probably tolerable at first (though, i doubt even that), but it will quickly be the only reason for the game to exist. Wanna win? You gotta buy that $100+ NFT, «Axe of such stupidity». And because NFTs are built on uniqueness and FOMO, it doesn't bode well for anyone. Not to mention, they're open for speculation and scamming. What's stopping someone, associated with game publisher, to buy all the NFTs for pennies (before anyone else can buy them) and then sell them back to dumb people for hundreds of dollars? Nothing is stopping them. What's stopping scammers from sending fake links to NFTs and taking away people money? Nothing. It's just another way to take more money from trustful people. And not 100% of the money goes back to developers, exchange/coin owners take a cut from every sale and/or money deposit/withdrawal.

I don't know how anyone else, but i'm not buying products from anyone who sells or plans to sell NFTs.

And it's not to mention the whole video card/HDD/SDD prices spike, electricity consumption and ecology problems that those crypto-shit causes.

SlappingOysters117d ago

That's a very alarmist view. Firstly, the whole point of NFTs is that you do still get them even if the game closes or the exchange shuts down. Secondly, the costs won't change. A skin now and a skin as an NFT have no price or practical difference. it's just that a skin now you don't own. If the value of that skin goes down, well you're no worse off than if you had bought it as DLC. If the skin goes up, well lucky you. You're better off.

The one thing that will absolutely make NFT future shit is if gamers just rant about it, without understanding it so they can push back on the boundaries they want set.

staticall117d ago

@SlappingOysters

«Firstly, the whole point of NFTs is that you do still get them even if the game closes or the exchange shuts down.»

Firstly, i recommend you checking the "MetaBirkin" situation (there're probably more if you google that, but it's the most recent one). Yeah, blockchain still has a record that you bought an item, but it's unusable, you can't even show a link to a product you paid for.
Secondly, there's no such guarantee, no contracts and so on. Cryptocurrency and NFTs are considered an investment. If you lose all your money, no one is to blame.

---

«A skin now and a skin as an NFT have no price or practical difference.»

There's a huge difference, too bad you don't see it. One of the main points of NFTs is that they're unique. That's a practical difference. 100 people can buy the same regular skin and it'll be the same for all of them. But only one can buy NFT skin (or equipment, or whatever they'll sell). And if there's even a small thing that differenciate two same-looking NFT skins (like a different serial number in Ubisoft Quartz intoduction video), people can and will charge more money for «better» serial number. If you don't believe me, look up license plates, in some countries people are willing to pay $20k for the car and $10k for a good license plate (like "111" or "999"). Or phone numbers, even some carriers offer premium phone numbers for extra cost. This is not a joke and it happens in a real world. And it will happen in a digital one too.

I would also like to point our that you contradict yourself. First you say there's no money difference, but in the next sentence you say that prices might go up and down. If that's not what you meant, then please, go on and check that Ubisoft Quartz announcement video i mentioned earlier, one of the "positives" they mention is that you can put your items on sale. And if you think that if a game is popular (or became popular recently) and that didn't affect the price of items (that players are selling), i can recommend you to check out Steam and it's marketplace. Prices are jumping all over the place and same will happen with NFTs. And because they're unique, no one can tell the correct prices for such items.

Or, you can check some blockchain game, like Axie and their pricing model. Prices are rising constantly, with no clear pattern, because why not?!

---

«The one thing that will absolutely make NFT future shit is if gamers just rant about it, without understanding it so they can push back on the boundaries they want set.»

Nope. 3 things will make NFTs future shit - gullible people, media/influencers with zero integrity and publishers. Once again, check the microtransactions, what positives have they brought to gaming? Not a god damned thing. At first, it was multiplayer-only and skins, then lootboxes, after that - single-player. Next, they tried selling you gameplay-affecting items. And some interested parties (like media and/or influencers) are constantly making up excuses why we need that in games, ignoring them in reviews or just no covering them and any negatives in the news.

---

But sure, call me an «alarmist». I prefer «realist» though.

ThatsGaming117d ago

NFTs are born out of the idea of art and collectibles. While I can see some people embracing this stuff, personally, I am into downsizing more then collecting now. Collectibles and art are for the richer versions of people as far as I am concerned. I have collectibles, but that was from a different time in my life. I won't see any money from them, but if I die, my kids may choose to sell them for profit.

If any vendor makes NFTs an integral part of the gaming experience that game will hopefully not succeed.

Kornholic117d ago

Progress, or regression in this instance, isn't some unstoppable force of nature that will happen no matter what we do about it.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 117d ago
TheExecutioner119d ago

No, it won't be bad, it's a good thing and will be well recognized in Metaverse. It's also an opportunity for investors, so as a player now you can play and invest.
As long it's not affecting my experience I don't mind either anyone would

Magog119d ago

There is no metaverse.

ravinash118d ago

The metaverse is just a gimmic.
You want to live in a virtualised world? We already do that with games and systems like second life.
Second life is basically the same thing which has been around for years but it not taking over the world like they claim the metaverse will do. Don't forget Home on playstation and where that went.
Will having items as purchasable items as NFTs add anyting we don't already have to our games like skins/gear/etc... no.
Will having the NFT item beof any help anywhere else in the Metaverse? that depends on how much extra programming the people who make the item want to put into it. But I can tell you one thing, if your having business meeting in the metaverse, your not going to turn up in the gaming NFT gear.

victorMaje118d ago

"…so as a player now you can play and invest."

You don’t understand video games.

Good-Smurf118d ago

That's the problem I want to relax and unwind not to mining on virtual shit and invest them stop try to make video games a chore and a work, you NFT and bitcoin bots are ruining everything in gaming.

porkChop118d ago

Explain why it's good. I've seen so many people say NFTs are good. Yet not one person has explained what NFTs bring to the table that we can't already do.

Profchaos118d ago (Edited 118d ago )

The metaverse a pointless marketing term that has no real world value. A place where you can use VR to cumbersomly shop and look at other people's avatars it's like a horrible version of PlayStation Home come to life. In short wasting time to do things that's are already much more streamlined.

Play and invest I don't want to invest in anything I have stocks if I really want to invest. I play for enjoyment

Crows90118d ago

No. As a player you will now be unable to attain a lot more content just by playing and be expected to use more and more money in a game that may be abandoned within a year. Making all those purchases entirely useless.

118d ago
+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 118d ago
XiNatsuDragnel119d ago

Sigh why I can't trust publishers not to be greedy?

Profchaos118d ago

Remember a time before our consoles were internet connected and a huge game was finished and complete on day 1 and you couldn't expand.it or include a pre order bonus. That was the last time I recall publishers not being greedy

Magog119d ago (Edited 119d ago )

I mean, how could they? They will however force NPC storefronts into every game they can. There is nothing as immersion breaking as an NPC trying to get you to spend real world money on cosmetics. I blame Bioware for it. They introduced that crap in their games to the detriment of us all.

SlappingOysters118d ago

Interestingly, they did state in that interview that it will be up to individual teams to decide if they want to align their game with NFTs. And also that they will use a new IP for P2E games. So that's something.

Good-Smurf118d ago

After the god awful Ubi Play I didn't touched a single Ubisoft game since Watch Dogs.
Their Quartz meant I will continue stay clear from any Ubisoft products.

Magog117d ago

The entire watch dogs series is pretty light on MTX compared to say Assassin's Creed.

Omegasyde118d ago

“DLC will expand games” or My favorite “the mtx are completely optional…”

Now we have developers purposely holding out “detailed content” announced for games before day 1.

NoFanBoy117d ago

Much worse than we can imagine.