They might if they contractually agreed to honor it. But even if they were inclined to offer such licenses (lets say consumers everywhere demanded it), there's not many meaningful enforcement advantages of shoving NFTs in the mix.
As a consumer such a contract could (including transferability) could exist without an NFT, and be just as enforced by the (centralized) judicial system or consumers voting with their feet.
Maybe I am also salty that I was one of the "early adopters" who saw this glaring flaw and missed out on a fortune because I understood the technical side. Right about the technology, wrong about the adoption I guess.
Owning a physical copy is not helping me play the game as Bliz has decided that license is no good.
An NFT could have the same experience. Nothing forcing the vendor to honor it.
Seems if NFT game licenses worked the way they are being talked about in this thread then there would be no way to ban players for bad behavior because it would be out of the hands of the developer. Which clearly isn't true.
No company is going to give a shit about what they sold to whom 10 years ago. Hell chances are they're already out of business.
"All the content you buy from Ultra, such as games, DLCs, and virtual items, are on-chain digital goods you truly own. On Ultra you’re in control of your assets as though they were physical items. These assets can be sold, traded and given away to your friends within Ultra, or outside of Ultra, through 3rd party marketplaces and mobile apps."