Ubisoft Quartz (Ghost Recon Breakpoint Project)

Ubisoft is a well-known AAA game developer. The gaming community generally is suspicious of Ubisoft’s projects as they have been known to kneecap their own games with annoying microtransactions. They do have a reputation of aggressively monetizing their games, so them being one of the first studios to integrate NFTs may not be a good look for either NFTs or Ubisoft. However, as you know, here at BytesRights we believe that NFTs are the future of true digital property ownership in video games.Ubisoft is the studio behind Assassin’s creed, Rainbow 6, Watchdogs, Far Cry and other popular games. I am a fan of the majority of Ubisoft’s games, and while they do frequently make decisions that are not in the interest of their community, I find their games to be good value propositions as the content is usually very strong. I’m very excited to dig into their new Ubisoft Quartz project as it represents the first true AAA game developer experimenting with NFTs. Ubisoft describes the Ubisoft Quartz project as:

“Ubisoft Quartz is a new experience available to our players, built upon our vision of creating ever-greater connection between you and the game worlds you love. The Ubisoft Quartz platform is the place where you will be able to acquire Digits, the first Ubisoft NFTs (non-fungible tokens), playable in a HD game and relying on an energy-efficient technology. Digits will be playable on the Ubisoft Connect PC version of Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon® Breakpoint.”

Evidently the first Quartz project did not sell well.

Ghost Recon is one of the few projects at Ubisoft that I don’t really play. I have personally found the game to be too repetitive and the campaign story to be forgettable.

Regardless of the overall quality of the game itself. We are here to rate the digital property rights index DPRI of the first Ubisoft Quartz project. The categories are described in detail in a prior post if you need to review.

The score will be a 1 to 10 number (1 being the worst property rights and 10 being perfect property rights). The composite number will be an average of 6 subcategory scores. The subcategories are:

Control - (the owner should be able to control whether to use the asset)

3 – The owner of the NFT gets to decide whether to use or display their NFTs. This is ideal; however, Ubisoft Quartz will not be getting a perfect score even in this category. If you dig into their End User License Agreement (EULA), they maintain complete ownership of both the “visual representation of the NFT” and they grant you a license on the visual representation. For a visual NFT, what is the value of the NFT beyond the visual representation? If you can’t display it, it has no utility. Nice try Ubisoft. Your users’ rights are completely hamstrung on this count.

Exclusivity - (all the costs and benefits from owning an asset should accrue to the owner)

2 – While you can sell your NFT, you cannot use the NFT in anyway not intended in game. The EULA states, “you do not have the right to…use the Visual Representation of your Digit in videos or any other forms of media.” Do you really own the NFT then? I would argue that it’s just a DLC item backed by no property rights at this point.

Transferability - (all property rights should be transferable from one owner to another in a voluntary, open and widely trafficked exchange)

2 - This is also suboptimal. They only allow you to sell your NFTs on one exchange Rarible. Worse, it is walled within a non-EVM blockchain, Tezos. While Tezos is better than many blockchains as far as decentralization, it is a tiny minority blockchain. Your assets are now stuck into a chain that not only is only a tiny portion of the overall NFT marketplace, but that chain is largely incompatible with the larger ecosystem. Etherum itself occupies much greater than 90% of the NFT marketplace value, but if you include the Ethereum ecosystem overall it is much greater. If your assets are not accessible to the greater NFT marketplace, you are not respecting the value of the property and not respecting the autonomy of the owners. This is only NFT ownership in its most superficial appearance. NFTs’ value depends on transferability. Ubisoft states that they chose Tezos because of energy concerns; however, even lower energy costs could be achieved by using an Ethereum layer 2 like Immutable X while providing superior digital property rights and transferability.

Enforcability - (property rights should be secure from seizure or encroachment by others)

3 - Generally the property rights are secured by the Tezos blockchain which is not ideal but could be worse; however, given the right to remove access to the game being held by Ubisoft and their complete control over “visual representation”, there is definitely a way for Ubisoft to dispossess you of your property.

Utility - (the asset should have intrinsic and/or utility value)

7 – This category has two main components. First, the NFT assets are instantiated in the game itself and usable upon purchase. However, the items (digits) appear to be largely cosmetic. I think gamers can disagree on whether the NFTs should be only cosmetic. If you allow NFTs to determine gameplay, you could end up with a pay to win scenario. However, interesting DLC content is able to thread this needle. I would have liked to see XP bonus and other items offered as NFTs.

Progressivity - (the asset should contribute to wide progress of the metaverse, interoperability is the key attribute)

4 - Ubisoft should be applauded for being one of the first studios to incorporate NFTs in a meaningful way. This will undoubtedly inform future projects. However, collaborations with other game projects do not yet exist. There is no indication that these NFTs may be useful for future games or even other Ubisoft games. Frankly, they should be. I have several items from Ubisoft connect that deliver content from one of their games to a different game. These items are fun and valuable.

Score - (average of all 6 subcategories)

3.5 – Ubisoft Quartz is a first in the gaming industry despite its apparent failure. Ubisoft needs to be applauded for allowing users to sell their in-game assets through blockchain technology. However, the EULA severely restricts users’ autonomy, authority, and digital property rights. This should be rectified. Modifying the EULA such that NFT owners do actually own rights to use their NFTs’ “visual representations” ais imperative. Also, the choice of blockchain is poor. If you want users to be able to access the power of decentralized markets, you need to get the NFTs onto the majority chain/ecosystem.

Questions, comments, suggestions and advice can be delivered to bytesrights@gmail.com or at Twitter @bytesrights