Receipts are already a universally accepted proof of purchase, nobody is questioning that the games were purchased. This is a solved problem.

Most financial institutions are required to keep transaction records for 7+ years by law, and you could maintain your own copies indefinitely.

I think an Amex statement from 1999 would stand up just fine in court if you had a scanned copy sitting in your Dropbox.

Maintaining a list of receipts and transactions is basic finance. This still has not much to do with technology.

You’re conflating two different things here: the user next owned the games, they owned a license to the games that Ubisoft could (and did) revoke.

NFTs aren’t magic. The issue here isn’t proving ownership, it’s that the thing that was owned (a license) is not the thing people really want to own (the game). I can deploy an NFT that replicates the current system 100%

> What about proving ownership

A receipt?

I have to admit the NFT is a positive here since you could prove ownership that a site like archive.org could prove they could verify.. So an independent third party could have more ways to navigate IP law and be able to replace failing services, serve older content the site wants to forget, etc.

An email receipt in your Google inbox suffices for most people.

Yup but that's a manual process. An NFT could help automate the whole process.

NFT's are not a source of truth.

It's an illusion to think that they are, but they aren't. The stolen art that is put on NFT's from artists is still the artists one and not from the NFT creator.

Eg. https://opensea.io/DisneyCollectibles

Ontopic: the company that creates the software/game owns your account, there is literally 0 benefit for them to use a NFT.

If they wanted to allow an open second hand market for nonphysical game copies, where you can separate out single games from your account, I'd say that the NFT approach might be one of the easier ways to do it. Downright practical. I'd even go so far as suggesting that this could be one of the least nonsensical NFT use cases.

But all that does not change the fact that they can't possibly want a second hand market. Leaving the old licence to whoever paid full price and selling anothor copy at long tail volume rebate is what pays the server bill.

That's not even remotely true. Companies have laws to abide to per country, that's not even possible to implement now.

Eg. In Europe reselling is possible because of a court order put into law in many cases. They don't like that, so it's not done in the US.

And in this case, you are ignoring basic licensing logic: group licenses for Enterprise, discounts, beta licenses, ...

Add usually, NFT fanatics are ignoring all logic of the real world and just say "NFT's are better" lol.

Your real world licencing caveat to shatter all NFT game licencing ideas would have been regional pricing, not enterprise or whatever. Because that's what game platforms are already struggling with even without NFTs anywhere near, volume transfer of one-time voucher tokens across price region borders. (the bar to becoming an NFT fanatic seems to be particularly low today?)

In theory if some kind of token-as-license system were to be used by a game distributor, it would be trivial to confirm that the token contract address (0xff..) matches the contract address required by the distributor. Other tokens may appear similar, but would have a different addressable hash.

The same is currently true of the NFT art market: an artist can say "I minted 0xff.." and so a token with hash "0xaa.." is clearly not originating from that artist, despite them having some similar attributes.

Yeah I have been involved in the community and things like Ubisoft making an NFT is 0% utility and 100% money grab. Don't trust gaming companies NFT providing any sort of value to you. Those things are not good for the community.

Silly question, did this person/entity selling Mickey permutations on opensea actually pay around 400k USD equivalent in Ether to mint those 4000 NFTs?

I am guessing there is some way around minting fees.

This has been around since May without getting taken down?