Ubisoft Becomes First Major Gaming Company to Launch In-Game NFTs

[Hydrogen]

After years of dabbling in the crypto and the NFT space, game industry giant Ubisoft is taking things to the next level.

Ubisoft was the first major video game publisher to take an interest in the blockchain space, experimenting with crypto game prototypes and supporting startups over the last few years. But now the gaming giant will actually implement NFTs within one of its major franchises in a new initiative that runs on Tezos.

Today, the publisher behind Assassin’s Creed and Just Dance revealed Ubisoft Quartz, a platform that lets players earn and purchase in-game items that are tokenized as NFTs on the Tezos blockchain. Quartz will launch first in the PC version of Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Breakpoint, the latest online game in the long-running tactical shooter series.

Quartz will launch in beta on December 9 in the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Brazil, and Australia. Ghost Recon Breakpoint players who have reached XP level 5 in the game can access the NFT drops. Ubisoft’s release says that players must be at least 18 years old to create a Tezos wallet for use with the game.

Ubisoft is referring to its NFT drops as “Digits” and plans to release free NFTs for early adopters on December 9, 12, and 15, with further drops planned for 2022. An infographic shows items such as weapon skins and unique armor and apparel, along with a message that teases future initiatives: “This is just the beginning…”

An NFT effectively serves as a receipt for a provably scarce digital item, and while digital illustrations and profile pictures have been popular, they can also represent video game items. Ethereum-powered monster-battling game Axie Infinity is currently the biggest player in the space, racking up more than $3.6 billion in trading volume to date, per CryptoSlam.

“Ubisoft Quartz is the first building block in our ambitious vision for developing a true metaverse,” said Nicolas Pouard, VP of Ubisoft’s Strategic Innovation Lab, in a release. “And it can’t come to life without overcoming blockchain’s early-form limitations for gaming, including scalability and energy consumption.”

Much of Ubisoft’s announcement today highlights the difference in environmental impact between the proof-of-stake Tezos blockchain and the energy-intensive Bitcoin.

Tezos claims that a single transaction on its network uses “more than 2 million times less energy” than Bitcoin, the leading cryptocurrency. It also suggests that a single Tezos transaction uses about as much energy as a 30-second streaming video, whereas a Bitcoin transaction is estimated to measure up to the environmental impact of a full, uninterrupted year of streaming video footage.

The perceived environmental impact of blockchain technology has created backlash within the traditional video game market in the past, including recently when horror game Dead by Daylight unveiled plans to launch a new character in the form of an NFT.

Ubisoft first began exploring the crypto and NFT space years back, developing a Minecraft-like game prototype called HashCraft that Decrypt first covered in early 2019. Since then, Ubisoft has worked with numerous crypto startups through its Entrepreneurs Lab accelerator program, and supported projects like Axie Infinity, Nine Chronicles, and NBA Top Shot. It also became a corporate validator on the Tezos network in April of this year.

While HashCraft was never released, Ubisoft did debut a couple of small experiments in the space: charity-focused NFT project Rabbids Token, as well as this year’s One Shot League, a spinoff of popular NFT fantasy soccer game, Sorare. In October, Ubisoft made its first true investment in a crypto startup, participating in Animoca Brands’ $65 million funding round and affirming plans to work with the firm on NFT-driven games.

Other major game publishers are eyeing the space, as well: Square Enix announced plans in November to develop NFT games, while Electronic Arts CEO Andrew Wilson recently described NFTs as “an important part of the future of our industry on a go-forward basis.”


https://decrypt.co/87752/ubisoft-first-major-gaming-company-launch-in-game-nfts

....


Ubisoft appears to be embracing the blockchain based P2E (play to earn) movement.

This could be a good stride towards legitimizing P2E and reducing the high number of scam games which have emerged.

Rather than purely art based NFTs, they will offer NFTs in the form of characters, weapon, armor and clothing. Good decision IMO. NFTs with in game functionality trend towards offering greater intrinsic value than mere art. If I remember correctly, there were rare counterstrike skins which reached values greater than $10,000. There could be a precedent for in game NFTs achieving and retaining decent dollar value over time.

Their blockchain is proof of stake based, rather than PoW. There is no info available yet on whether they will offer micro earnings for winning games in the form of their own crypto token. As other P2E games have done.

[1714832610]

1714832610

[1714832610]

1714832610

[1714832610]

1714832610

[1714832610]

1714832610

[1714832610]

1714832610

[hatshepsut93]

Just because AAA company does it, doesn't mean it will be successful. The industry has a big history of major flops, especially recently with many big disappointments every single year. NFT and P2E is something that nobody asked for, Ubisoft is just trying new stuff, just in case it will turn out to be highly profitable, but it's likely to fail. Earlier this year Discord tried to add NFTs to their client, and it was met with such backlash that they immediately did a 180 and dropped their plans. Gamers want a good product that is worth their money, and NFT is not helping make games better, but it can make them worse.

[jackg]

Didn't/doesn't steam have something you can sell on their marketplace called badges or something? I seem to remember getting a few from a game and they sold for 11p each (the game itself was £7 so I'm not sure who was buying them or if it was like a cashback system).

[Daltonik]

Yes, but to participate, you must have a pc to play Gost Recon Breakpoint and reach the 5th level of XP in addition, there are restrictions by region, you must be a resident of the following countries: USA, Canada, France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Australia, Brazil.
https://quartz.ubisoft.com/faq/requirements/who-can-acquire-digits
https://quartz.ubisoft.com/faq/requirements/in-which-territories-will-ubisoft-quartz-be-available

[Wexnident]

Doesn't seem like it'd be good tbh. There has been a LOT of existing industries that have tried to dip their hands into NFT's, nothing really stood out. Especially in this case where it seems like the NFT's they're trying to release are, well, just cosmetics? It doesn't really bring out a lot to value it, except for those hard-core gamers that like to collect it. NFT's have been growing mostly because of the ability of the assets to grow in value, I don't see cosmetics as being one of them imo.

[Daltonik]

Ubisoft's idea to promote NFT's certainly contributes to the popularization of the crypt as a whole, but unlike games originally built on the blockchain such as Axie, for example, the quartz initiative, something judging by the number of dislikes under the promo video did not meet with support from the community of players.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSVoJ0WUQfY&t=17s   

[bakasabo]

I hope Ubisoft wont be so greedy to make situation when player is obliged to get NFT to be able to play full game with all available options. It will be very disappointing, when you get to a specific place in a game, and you need an NFT to go further. And I hope that these NFT wont be something that can influence online gaming experience (NFT owners will be stronger than regular players).

[hatshepsut93]

Ubisoft's idea to promote NFT's certainly contributes to the popularization of the crypt as a whole, but unlike games originally built on the blockchain such as Axie, for example, the quartz initiative, something judging by the number of dislikes under the promo video did not meet with support from the community of players.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSVoJ0WUQfY&t=17s   

95% of gamers hating the announcement aligns pretty well with my observations as a gamers that most players don't want NFT and overall it's a net negative for the industry, because adding NFT to a game makes gaming experience worse for most players. The percentage of people who want to earn real money from games is rather small, because most gamers are people who already have enough money, which they are ready to spend in exchange for good content, and NFT does not make content good, but actually makes games worse if it introduces pay to win mechanics.

[fiulpro]

Doesn't seem like it'd be good tbh. There has been a LOT of existing industries that have tried to dip their hands into NFT's, nothing really stood out. Especially in this case where it seems like the NFT's they're trying to release are, well, just cosmetics? It doesn't really bring out a lot to value it, except for those hard-core gamers that like to collect it. NFT's have been growing mostly because of the ability of the assets to grow in value, I don't see cosmetics as being one of them imo.

I do think that when we talk about cosmetics in gaming industry most of the people try and earn their outfits instead of something like : buying an NFT since most of the players are not really into aggressive investing.

-The NFT industry is growing undeniably, from selling socks to selling something like a big beautiful painting, it's paving it's way through the world and many upgradations are being made now upgrades like : the buyers paying the fee instead of the people who made them for real which I think would add and much more value and character in the market for the time being.

It's an unexplored industry for sure and I do think we should be ready for more upgradations in the same as well.

Right now I don't think that the game one would be of a very big advantage tho since it's already something that people sometimes purchase, it's not something new rather going on since ages, we might need something more solid for it to grow and be accepted in the society more.

[Fortify]

Just because AAA company does it, doesn't mean it will be successful. The industry has a big history of major flops, especially recently with many big disappointments every single year. NFT and P2E is something that nobody asked for, Ubisoft is just trying new stuff, just in case it will turn out to be highly profitable, but it's likely to fail. Earlier this year Discord tried to add NFTs to their client, and it was met with such backlash that they immediately did a 180 and dropped their plans. Gamers want a good product that is worth their money, and NFT is not helping make games better, but it can make them worse.

This is very true and quite frankly I'm not sure that NFT's really fit too well into gaming, when what they're suggesting is already covered by microtransactions. I guess it's just planned as another revenue stream for them, another way for them to sell useless virtual content that some people choose to buy, with minimal effort and a fairly good upside from the game developer perspective. They'll also be "first to market" in this sector which gives them a sort of novelty bonus. Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who buy this sort of stuff and it would fit in well with all the other skins/items that they are already selling inside gaming stores.

[stompix]

95% of gamers hating the announcement aligns pretty well with my observations as a gamers that most players don't want NFT and overall it's a net negative for the industry, because adding NFT to a game makes gaming experience worse for most players.

Gamers play for fun, people who want to earn from games are working.
That's why real gamers hate it when gold farming starts to take over a game like it happened to Runescape, it ruins all the fun for normal players, it ruins the economy, it makes everything dirt cheap, and makes it a lot harder for free players since what you earn in 4-5 hours of normal gameplay has no value in the market and you can't get any items for yours.

I'm also easily enraged when poeple compared that garbage of axie infinity to a game or to pokemon go! I've played pokemon go for 4 years, I'm maxed level and I have them really all, and never bought a single coin package but I support the game by buying plushies for my son. The moment they will bring in any sort of currency or NFT or anything else is the moment I will drop it with no regret.

The percentage of people who want to earn real money from games is rather small, because most gamers are people who already have enough money, which they are ready to spend in exchange for good content, and NFT does not make content good, but actually makes games worse if it introduces pay to win mechanics.

That's why I hate 99% of android games, they are all P2W (actually no, they are more like Pay to play), fuck them, I'd rather pay $99.99 and enjoy the games rather than buying every month 3$ for gems, diamonds, crystals, gold etc etc.

Ubisoft's idea to promote NFT's certainly contributes to the popularization of the crypt as a whole, but unlike games originally built on the blockchain such as Axie, for example, the quartz initiative, something judging by the number of dislikes under the promo video did not meet with support from the community of players.

When poeple will top making money from Axie as for everyone "earning" from it somebody must buy those damn jpg pictures for real cash guess what will be the fate of Axie? Unlike that, I still had a few friends playing Diablo 2!!! on a private server and when blizzard bought those servers back there were still thousands eager to play a 2000 game.

That's what games are for, the rest is for earning money before the fad goes away....cryptokittes style.

[finaleshot2016]

Huge gaming company taht enters the crypto space is really a huge help actually. It will bring more people to thr crypto and will adapt the current meta in crypto which is metaverse. People will get interest and it's a great addition for market as we are increasing the power than whales.

[chaser15]

After Steam declined the Play-To-Earn games on their platforms, I hope Ubisoft won't do the same. In fact, even with no play-to-earn feature, their games are collected by games worldwide.

Adding the NFT part will give them more reasons now to spend more time playing.

I will try to download the game mentioned but I'm afraid with my current PC specs, it can't run smoothly the game.

[batang_bitcoin]

From a gamer's perspective and also user of their platform, it's good that they've looked into NFT and it's going to be related to cryptocurrencies. That's what I'm looking at. But, they don't have to make every item as NFT, I've seen this already in Axie and they're going to make their land gameplay to have items in the form of NFT. Maybe, I just haven't seen the whole thing but I'm looking at it as a gamer and would be looking forward to the actual thing soon.

[hatshepsut93]

When poeple will top making money from Axie as for everyone "earning" from it somebody must buy those damn jpg pictures for real cash guess what will be the fate of Axie? Unlike that, I still had a few friends playing Diablo 2!!! on a private server and when blizzard bought those servers back there were still thousands eager to play a 2000 game.

That's what games are for, the rest is for earning money before the fad goes away....cryptokittes style.

I have a strong feeling that majority of the people who express support for NFT/blockchain in gaming don't really play that much games or spend money on games, so basically don't understand gamers and what they want. Just like how people who cheered for "blockchain for medical records" and "blockchain for supply chains" 2 years ago had zero understanding of those things and how they work.

So even if the crypto crowd is expressing support for Ubisoft's decision, it won't help Ubisoft in the slightest, because those people won't bring a penny of profit to them, while their core audience could very likely start spending less money on their products if NFTs make their gaming experience worse.

[Daltonik]

Yes, I am also a little discouraged by the statement that the future belongs to games with NFT, most of those with whom I play and communicate do not want to hear about it, but there are a huge number of people who spend real money on purchasing game resources, for example, playing strategy, and they have been doing it for years, so it should be interesting for them.

They are literally obsessed with it, I have a similar dialogue at work all the time with a colleague who asks for a computer to go online, that's how they have another offensive of the alliance there, to my question, aren't you tired of doing this for more than 5 years, he says that I don't understand anything and it really is, for me the game is a time to distract myself and let off steam, I can't be constantly chained to it in everyday life.

But nevertheless, new trends set their own rules and who knows what kind of saturation the games will become in the very near future, and now ubisoft will receive its portion of negativity, but also many were dissatisfied that steam is categorically against blockchain games on its platform.

[stompix]

Yes, I am also a little discouraged by the statement that the future belongs to games with NFT, most of those with whom I play and communicate do not want to hear about it, but there are a huge number of people who spend real money on purchasing game resources, for example, playing strategy, and they have been doing it for years, so it should be interesting for them.

They are literally obsessed with it, I have a similar dialogue at work all the time with a colleague who asks for a computer to go online, that's how they have another offensive of the alliance there, to my question, aren't you tired of doing this for more than 5 years, he says that I don't understand anything and it really is, for me the game is a time to distract myself and let off steam, I can't be constantly chained to it in everyday life.

You see, people spend money for having fun on their games, the same poeple in 99% cases will top paying a dime when it becomes financial because most of us play games to relax or to disconnect from the real world if you bring finances in it your ruin the whole thing.

To give you an example, you can earn in pokemon go about 50 coins (basically to upgrade your max inventory capacity and buy extra raid passes, not really a big advantage), for that you need your pokemons to hold a gym for 8 hours combined) and you only get those when you get kicked out. Those 50 gold coins if I would buy a package are less than 30 eurocents if you buy in bulk. I've gone out tens of times late at night 22-23 to kick some ass in the gyms and drop my pokemon, sometimes spending an hour combining walking around, running 2 miles in the park, and playing the game, now...IF they would pay me in real currency for this, I won't do it for 10$ which is the average working hour pay around here.

The moment they do this everything will be full of timed bots, the raids will be filled with poeple who won't say a word to you, with whom you can't make a dirty joke while tapping like a madman, and so on, ruining everything.

but also many were dissatisfied that steam is categorically against blockchain games on its platform.

Do you know how steam looks at those?
Like a Burger&Ribs restaurant owner looking at a bunch of vegans threatening to boycott his business.

I have a strong feeling that majority of the people who express support for NFT/blockchain in gaming don't really play that much games or spend money on games, so basically don't understand gamers and what they want.

Here is the list of the top 6 Countries in the ordered list playing Axie Infinity.

Philippines – 40% player base
Venezuela
USA
Indonesia
Thailand
Malaysia

vs

Top 100 Countries/Markets by Game Revenues
1 China
2 United States Of America
3 Japan
4  Republic Of Korea
5  Germany
....
21 Malaysia
29 Philippines

Those things don't match, wonder why...Should we try GDP per capita? 

[dothebeats]

There should be a fine line between gaming for fun and gaming for revenue in the future. I'm pretty sure gaming companies would embed NFTs on games whenever they can, and Ubisoft clearly starts the trend by doing some test games and slowly introducing it on one of their known games. Apparently, huge companies are racing to create the first framework for the so-called 'metaverse', hence the focus on NFTs and other such things are greatly increasing day by day.

[Silberman]

Just because AAA company does it, doesn't mean it will be successful. The industry has a big history of major flops, especially recently with many big disappointments every single year. NFT and P2E is something that nobody asked for, Ubisoft is just trying new stuff, just in case it will turn out to be highly profitable, but it's likely to fail. Earlier this year Discord tried to add NFTs to their client, and it was met with such backlash that they immediately did a 180 and dropped their plans. Gamers want a good product that is worth their money, and NFT is not helping make games better, but it can make them worse.

Agreed, I still remember the days in which you could get a full video game by just buying it once, now everything is behind micro-transactions so you can get all the content of the game, and if to this they want to add NFTs and play to earn it is obvious that people like me are not part of the user base they are looking for, luckily for me games of old had no restrictions so I can play them whenever I want and still obtain more fun than with whatever trash they release today.

[hatshepsut93]

Ubisoft removed their NFT announcement video from Youtube.

The response from gamers was so overwhelmingly negative that Ubisoft decided to "unnanounce" their NFTs. It could mean that they will even abandon this feature altogether, or will disable it shortly after it launched, when they will seen that no one uses it.