Its on a public chain: https://tezos.com/ They should be using: https://assets.tqtezos.com/docs/token-contracts/fa2/2-fa2-nf...

True they could implement arbitrary restrictions.

You're missing the point that this would motivate a marketplace where Ubisoft is not the only portal for these NFT-owned games. nftgamingportal.com could exist which accepts these NFTs (in addition to many others) despite whatever restrictions Ubisoft decides to impose (which they are free to do... they own the walled garden).

> nftgamingportal.com could exist which accepts these NFTs (in addition to many others) despite whatever restrictions Ubisoft decides to impose

Ubisoft's coin is on a public chain right now, and they have restrictions that prevent people from using arbitrary 3rd-party marketplaces to trade the NFTs. So it's a nice theory, but it doesn't seem to be working in practice; being on a public chain isn't currently preventing Ubisoft from restricting other portals.

I think people believed this portability was inherent to how NFTs work, that of course anything on a public chain would have to allow 3rd-party marketplaces. But I don't see what mechanisms actually exist to force that outcome; I think that's just a hope that people had rather than an inherent technological property of how blockchain contracts work.

Not really hope, but this is one of the biggest value propositions. If your NFTs give more rights/power to the owner they are going to be more attractive and thus more valuable.

On the other hand being able to have more restrictive tokens enables smart contracts to comply with regulations. But for gaming NFTs it really destroys any added value/utility which is something i should have expected of Ubisoft.

No, you’re missing the point. That’s just not how NFTs work.

I can create NFTs that cannot be traded on other marketplaces.