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.