> If they want to block someone

The point of NFT is to use ownership to provide access. If they use another system, like an account system, well obviously it's no longer NFT and then obviously it no longer has the advantage of NFT. Even if they don't use NFT to provide direct access but instead access is provided behind another wall (like an account), the other advantage of being able to transfer its ownership to someone else is still there, and again if they block that, well obviously, they really don't support NFT at all.

An NFT is not a receipt, it's the actual ownership.

The real question is whether any games will ever really support NFT, that's a whole other question. It will takes times before we find that out as currently, with the amount of cash it bring for barely providing anything, it's not clear whether an actual full featured game will comes out or it will all be glorified visualizer.

In other words, an NFT cannot force Ubisoft to do anything they don't want to do and if they do want to allow this they don't need an NFT. Since blockchains are too inefficient to store content and the publishers are unlikely to put anything important on a system with no fraud recovery mechanism[1], there will always be a set of services which are what actually determine whether you can use the game and the only thing which matters will be the policy they enforce there.

> An NFT is not a receipt, it's the actual ownership.

This is incorrect for most NFTs since they lack a contract assigning ownership rights. Ubisoft certainly could add that but, again, why wouldn’t they do that now if it’s something they want?

1. Even if a blockchain could be efficient enough to publish the client software, few companies are going to allow their software to be published somewhere which allows anyone in the world to download it without a mechanism to prevent a single leaked key from making it irrecoverably free to anyone on the internet.

That's the whole point, the producer doesn't have control and therefore you own what you bought, instead of renting it.

I understand that this is the vision used to sell tokens but that's why I asked what reason we have to think that Ubisoft will start doing something which they could already do any time they want without sharing revenue. Their terms of service are what they are because that's how they want them to be, and there's nothing forcing them to use NFTs at all much less implement them with far more generous terms of service.

This is the only way their tokens would sell themselves (and arguably more so) is if they guarantee that even if you lost your account, you could still transfer your NFTs to a new account. Also the ability to sell games you've bought is pretty awesome. Heck under this scheme, if you buy a game plus DLC but you already own the base game, it should let you gift / sell the game to a friend if you paid the full amount of the game + DLC.

I seem to remember a time when people were able to sell games and buy games on the Steam market.

Why should we believe that gamers will reverse all of their past history and start demanding the ability to resell games? They could do that now, and that would avoid the substantial extra cost of the NFTs.