https://www.finder.com.au/ubisoft-interview-nfts

I would have sent a "No shit, dumbass" to Ubisoft's Vice President of Innovation, but contacting Ubisoft requires an Ubisoft account. Explaining that it's like getting a Beanie Baby; but you didn't buy that. You got it with the receipt you bought. And idiots are allegedly supposed to speculate over that instead of the Beanie Baby.

The jackass probably Peter Principled their way up past middle management and invented a "do nothing" position for themselves.

To Staff/Moderators: Yes, I know calling them various insults is a bit petty of me, but they are exactly running a con; they deserve nothing but scorn.

TL;DR: Click the link, I'm not here to hold your hand.

It would be helpful if your post had absolutely any content relevant to the point you were making, and you thoughts on that, rather than vague statements that don't give any details about what has got you riled up.

Ubisoft officials are surprised and upset that people aren't happy about NFTs in games. NFTs are just buying bragging rights. You're literally paying money to someone for a unique hash that proves that you did indeed give them that money.

what is a beanie baby? NFTs are the future a bad one

The literal first line of my post is a link to an interview.

So let me get this straight. NFT is some acronym for a buy your name or handle to be added to that game?

No apology necessary. You said all the right things.

https://www.theverge.com/22310188/nft-explainer-what-is-blockchain-crypto-art-faq

I don't normally link to the Verge, but this is a fairly good explainer. It's essentially a form of ownership rights, logged in a blockchain. However, it's usually for virtual items, and the virtual items can be freely copied in spite of the NFT ownership status. e.g. I could buy NFT for a piece of clipart and I would "own" it. However, anyone else could still copy the clipart and download it themselves.

Essentially, it has all the hallmarks of a speculative bubble (similar to the current bitcoin/cryptocurrency bubble), but with arguably even less underpinning the valuation of the tokens.

Well, that wasn't worth the time spent reading it. Seems the only "benefit" to gamers that Ubisoft identify is the resale value of the things, and that's buried in a wall of text claiming that they're only being introduced for our benefit.

The very idea of creating scarcity where there is none is stupid and doesn't benefit anyone.

Oh yay, a random link with no context or explanation of what it is! I can't wait to click on that! Don't act like a petulant child, just follow a modicum of forum savoir vivre and give your ranting some context instead of lazy link dumping.

Oh, it benefits someone. Governments and companies have used the strategy of implied and planned scarcity for years (The Disney Vault, Amiibos, Nintendo Classic consoles, etc)

I'd argue that physical products are slightly different though. While Nintendo could have made more, at least they were real tangible products and needed to be manufactured. NFTs are artificial scarcity overlaid on a freely copyable non-scare good.

Ooh - Interesting. Although wouldn't it be a form of DRM (inability to play without an internet connection)