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

[SlappingOysters]

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.

[-Foxtrot]

“ 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.

[TheColbertinator]

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

[LordoftheCritics]

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

[jznrpg]

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

[Christopher]

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.

[CrimsonWing69]

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?

[Sephiroushin]

Youre giving them ideas!

[Notellin]

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_D3TH]

@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

[nommers]

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.

[LordoftheCritics]

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.

[FlavorLav01]

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.

[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.

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

[LordoftheCritics]

@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

[MetroidFREAK21]

No, they are just bad. Plain and simple

[thecodingart]

Rather staying ignorant, educated yourself: https://youtu.be/UKzup7XDyq...

[NoFanBoy]

Very good link !

[Kurt Russell]

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

[staticall]

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.

[SlappingOysters]

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.

[staticall]

@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.

[ThatsGaming]

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.

[Kornholic]

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

[TheExecutioner]

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

[Magog]

There is no metaverse.

[TheExecutioner]

See you in metaverse

[ravinash]

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.

[MetroidFREAK21]

Screw your metaverse

[victorMaje]

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

You don’t understand video games.

[Good-Smurf]

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.

[porkChop]

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.

[Profchaos]

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

[Crows90]

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.

[NoFanBoy]

Is this sarcasm ?

[XiNatsuDragnel]

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

[Profchaos]

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

[Magog]

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.

[SlappingOysters]

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-Smurf]

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.

[Magog]

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

[lociefer]

Horse armor 2.0

[SlappingOysters]

Lol!

[Omegasyde]

“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.

[NoFanBoy]

Much worse than we can imagine.

[Killer2020UK]

NFT's are just proof of ownership. If you have ever purchased any in game item before, this is the same but now you actually own the item rather than the company you bought it from owning it. That being said, unless the company supports a tangible use for it in their games, it kind of makes its value null.

So basically same old, different tech.

[CrimsonWing69]

Is it that multiple people can get the items? Or is it a single item for the highest bidder?

[Omegasyde]

No it’s supposed to be “unique” items.

[Notellin]

Correct just like multiple prints of the same photo there can be multiple NFT of the same items. This would be decided by the collection owner. For example the Adidas NFT pass. It's the same NFT with multiple owners.

@Omegasyde Of course this uneducated internet troll didn't know this about the subject he's just shouting the loudest.

[rokos]

I believe it is way more than this due to the uniqueness of the transaction in my opinion can spark a new segment of the market for all media films, music, books and so on sold by the users themselves. Also the creator can receive a percentage with any further resale, imagine someone buying the new Assassins Creed game digitally for £60 and after beating it being able to resale it for £40 but the publisher in this case Ubisoft is able to take 10% from any further resale so in this case £4, the next owner resales it for £30 and so on. In my opinion that is where NFTs will shine as the ability to for users to resell their digital content and as you pointed owning it is key.

[Crows90]

You're comparing buying an actual video game to buying a digital hat

[northpaws]

But the thing is, developers have no incentive to do that, using your example, player A wants to play the game, so he paid $60, now player B wants to play the game too, do you think a game company would want player B to buy from player A, so they earn $4, or buy from them so they earn $60?

[Good-Smurf]

Enjoy buying a digital shovel with one unique pixel on it.

[Notellin]

@northpaws Are you really that bad at critical thinking? This is exactly what the publishers have wanted for 20 years to eliminate 2nd hand sales where they don't see any of the profit.

[northpaws]

@Notellin

@Notellin

Talk about bad at critical thinking, NFT doesnt change anything, as long as there are physical, what does this change? And if they could eliminate physical, they would have done that, why would they want gamers to sell games to each other and only earns a few bucks each time?

So there are only 2 scenarios.
1) People still trade games physically, NFT doesn't change a thing
2) The game industry somehow eliminated all physical, and they are now more than happy to not let anyone pass the ownership of their digital games because that lower their income significantly.

These NFTs implementations right now are born for one purpose, to make more money off gamers, not less, by selling artificially unique digital items.

[SlappingOysters]

explain to me @northpaws how that is any different to now. What difference does it make to you if a skin is an NFT or not an NFT. I'd rather have the option to sell it on, rather than to have no option at all. The cost to get it does not change. Quartz is very clearly not an investor market. You can't even get a skin unless you buy a $70 game and play a significant amount of it.

[Phoenix76]

Own a "digital" something??

We've owned "digital" games before. Then seen them removed entirely from "digital" store fronts

[SlappingOysters]

For those who may not know, the Xbox Game Pass is run on blockchain. I'm pretty sure the Epic Games Marketplace is, too. Which means probably Fortnite as well - if it's not already it will be. It also probably means most games on UE5 will, too.

The companies are already using the tech and we love the application without complaint. Game Pass is great. Ubisoft has just had the guts to say, what if we used this tech to give you the ownership.

[Magog]

Proof? I've never heard that.

[SlappingOysters]

https://customers.microsoft...

All the transactions and royalty payouts aree done on blockchain that runs on Azure. Ubisoft also licenses that tech to handle all its transactions. https://www.blockchaingamer...

[franwex]

Gamepass is ran on Microsoft servers. The analytics they collect are too valuable to Microsoft to be given up.

Server solutions is literally their main business.

[gold_drake]

"buuut we're gonna implement them anyways"

[Lionsguard]

Like how microtransactions aren't "forced" upon players? I mean sure they're not forced but some games, if you're not buying MT or DLC, you're missing out on a lot of the game.

[SlappingOysters]

I've never bought MT or DLC, and have never felt like I'm missing out. Just saying.

[Lionsguard]

It depends on what game you're playing.

[BlaqMagiq1]

Ubisoft in the press: We promise not to force players to use Quartz
Ubisoft back at HQ: We will absolutely force players to use Quartz

[Profchaos]

What a bias rubbish article it the writer basically calls gamers idiots for taking a stand against a technology that is still unproven and no one in the industry has been able to articulate a meaningful use of it.

In summary it's a nft fan interviewing the lead of the Ubisoft nft team.

The writer spends the whole argument asking questions like do you think gamers will realise when they are wrong.

Pure garbage

[ocelot07]

Am the only one here doesn't have a clue what a NFT is 😂.

[FPS_D3TH]

I’ve got diamond hands when it comes to never purchasing NFTS and so should you. What a scam. Feel sorry for the people dropping they’re months rent on some corporate level scam

[sourOG]

No F***ing Thanks

[WillyC009]

I refuse NFTs. I was already done with Ubisofts terrible products(odyssey, Valhalla being complete garbage as far as I’m concerned), but their insistence to include NFTs in their games means I’ll never come back.

I hope there are others who feel the way I do.

[Chocoburger]

There are others who feel this way as well. Ubisoft was an amazing publisher for many years, and then they started sinking deeper into mediocrity and eventually worse when the PS4 / XB1 generation started.

They started focusing too much on pre-order bonuses (4 different stores with 4 different unlockable missions to get as a pre-order bonus -- BULLSHIT!), and micro-trash-actions, endless grinding filler game design. Just 'chore work gaming'.

Ubisoft games aren't about having fun anymore, they're about nickle and diming you at every opportunity. I stopped buying Assassin's Creed games after Syndicate. I did play Origins and Odyssey for free, but I disliked both games (did beat the story campaign on both, though). Bad stories, bad characters, bad game mechanics, bad game design, overall generic boring slogfest simply to waste your time.

I skipped Valhalla, I don't care about the story or characters anymore, I don't care about what happens next, I know in advance that the series and Ubisoft as a whole are creatively bankrupt at this point. They literally just announced yet another Ghost Recon game, so soon after the trash Breakpoint.

While I will continue to play their classic games, I no longer have any desire to support them in the future. Such a shame, because they didn't have to become worthless trash, they chose to become worthless trash.

[Phoenix76]

Ubisoft's NFT promise: 'We won't force our players to use Quartz
In other words, they will find a more "insidious" way to make you buy these, whilst calling them by a different name

[GodOfNothing]

Back in my day games were just meant to be fun and challenging. Now it's about a time and money investment. Gaming lost its way long ago. My soul weeps.

[Echone1]

It looks like some people are going to live in an empty room in the real world, and sleep on the bare ground, because they're willing to spend it all on their virtual world presentation. Thanks, but without me.
I'm going to boycott this as well as the gaming outfits and the gaming currency. I wish hackers a successful hunt

[Ninver]

Can someone explain what NFT is?

[Echone1]

a virtual item that only exists in one copy (just another number on the helmet, different appearance, picture, furniture, etc.) and goes on to be sold out of the game. But there is also a commission from each transaction to the manufacturer (in this case, ubisoft). The payment is made for cryptocurrency, at special NFT markets.
Easily earned money for the manufacturer, very doubtful and uncertain investment for the buyer (unless there is an even bigger fool who will buy your $500 virtual socks for $1,000.)

[SlappingOysters]

It's basically just DLC, but instead of it being a passive thing you buy and use then lose, you buy it and retain ownership. So instead of the copany having the power over it, you have the power over it. So it's a good thing in theory, as long as they keep it that pure.

[Ninver]

Thanks for the replies. Sounds interesting but I can't help but doubt it'll remain pure.

[Silly gameAr]

I don't know about anyone else, but to me, the direction that gaming is going in is getting scary.

[sourOG]

Scary or boring?

[glenn1979]

🤔🤔🤔
29300;🤔🤔 no FUCK OFF WITH THAT SHIT