Warablo
Member
You see, that takes too much time and effort than just putting together a skin and over pricing it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Jason Schreier: This week, Ubisoft posted a defense of NFTs on its internal message board, Mana. The employee responses were not pretty.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Sure, and then those people can quit.
Tech in general is an industry where the talent has the power. Companies are scrambling for ways to keep people around, to attract new people.
And since the majority of people are not management.. in any industry.. that's an AWESOME thing.
Not sure why people feel the need to sound like such bootlickers.
Last edited:
chaseroni
Member
I don't think they are inherently "Bad"
I never said that.
The well of "NFT's" has already been poisoned, from gamers perspectives. (see STALKER, Team17, Steam etc.)
They see it as another way to nickel and dime the customer.
There are tons of uses for NFT's for things outside of games, but within them they have yet to prove themselves.
Doesn't mean some aren't trying, Crypto Royale is doing some very interesting things with NFT skins.
Basically, it's all up to the implementation, and gamers already don't trust Ubisoft to not be overly greedy.
For the record, I also doubt Ubisofts ability to make an NFT system that gamers, devs, and suits would be happy with.
Ogbert
Member
Again, true.
Genuine talent has a modicum of power, but not that much power. And certainly not enough to change corporate strategy.
Bootlicking’s got nothing to do with it. Working for the company, taking their coin and then leaking an intranet post to Jason Schreier doesn’t make you a freedom fighter. You’re just a bootlicker with a shoddy grasp of non-disclosure policies.
chaseroni
Member
Damn. This is extremely relevant today for me, and is absolutely fucking true. Talent is everything in tech.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Working for a company, generating coin for them you mean?
Look if the person gets caught leaking something and gets fired.. not gonna shed a tear for them either.
But companies being dumb and doing things that has talent leaving in droves? Also not shedding a tear for them, and it's attitudes like yours that are causing these companies to go down the shitter.
Last edited:
daffyduck
Member
Sure. But firing the lot of them over that is pretty extreme.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MiguelItUp
Member
I mean, Ubisoft sucks, so those comments make sense, especially in reaction to the whole NFT thing.
But also lol, if you don't wanna be there, leave, good lord.
But also lol, if you don't wanna be there, leave, good lord.
The industry is headed towards a fall or an extreme paradigm shift. Thank god, child like and at times clueless Nintendo is here. I say that half kidding. But there is such a disconnect between developers and company boards and share holders. It's going to bring it all down.
The only cool thing about NFT would be to allow the re-sale of used games digitally. Publishers would get some return on their titles, they never had before. But the greed and pressure to meet shareholders and ROI, is just far out pacing developers.
Micro transactions, DLC are bad enough. Eventually going to push gamers to far. But then there is always that .01% of people with too much cash to burn, which will ruin it for all of us regular gamers.
The only cool thing about NFT would be to allow the re-sale of used games digitally. Publishers would get some return on their titles, they never had before. But the greed and pressure to meet shareholders and ROI, is just far out pacing developers.
Micro transactions, DLC are bad enough. Eventually going to push gamers to far. But then there is always that .01% of people with too much cash to burn, which will ruin it for all of us regular gamers.
jigglet
Banned
Executives are Ubi employees too.
Just like most poisons, are, technically, made out of completely natural products.
FunkMiller
Gold Member
Please stop buying Ubisoft games.
It’s really not worth it.
It’s really not worth it.
Zannegan
Member
I wish I could believe that, but given what they've been allowed to get away with so far, I don't think there is a straw big enough break this camel's back. The only thing they care about is the bottom line; if that remains unaffected, the managers will keep pushing.
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
You know that I meant basically everyone except management, right?
jigglet
Banned
Read my second sentence. I’m obviously joking.
Cyberpunkd
Gold Member
Gamers: NFTs are thrash!
Also gamers: Oh, innovative monetisation mechanics in my favorite series! Go devs!
Oddvintagechap
Member
If Sony buys Ubisoft, I might sell my PS5, as much as I like Rainbow Six Siege.
Aenima
Member
Since December Ubi is losing alot of staff because harassmant stuff inside the company. This is just another layer of shit to make some more staff upset.
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
Yeah I just woke up and understood after taking my shower...I'm really not a morning person even more so at 6am.
BaneIsPain
Member
An adult wrote the word “ratio-ed”?
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
I can't wait for all the articles about little Timmy spending $15,000 on his dad's credit card on NFTs in a Ubisoft game.
Unlike loot boxes, however, NFTs have clear monetary value outside of the game and thus can be regulated the shit out of.
Unlike loot boxes, however, NFTs have clear monetary value outside of the game and thus can be regulated the shit out of.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
The attitude towards NFTs are critically bad.
BUT, gamers also said the same thing about digital downloads and mtx skins. And look what happened to those ultra sticking points. Gamers love them.
Dont be surprised if you give NFTs a few years to figure it out and next thing you know a weapon skin NFT for $5 will be right beside a weapon skin mtx for $5.
I've done my part. I dont do mtx (last one I did was a MW3 map pack 10 years ago) and will never touch NFT either. But comes down to the rest of gamers if they dive in or avoid it. NFTs will go away if nobody buys it.
BUT, gamers also said the same thing about digital downloads and mtx skins. And look what happened to those ultra sticking points. Gamers love them.
Dont be surprised if you give NFTs a few years to figure it out and next thing you know a weapon skin NFT for $5 will be right beside a weapon skin mtx for $5.
I've done my part. I dont do mtx (last one I did was a MW3 map pack 10 years ago) and will never touch NFT either. But comes down to the rest of gamers if they dive in or avoid it. NFTs will go away if nobody buys it.
Radical Dreamer
Member
based
WitchHunter
Banned
Oh look, the market protection goons in action.
Ubisoft Employees Push Back Hard on Blockchain Initiative
A conflict between Ubisoft Entertainment SA and many of its employees over a plan to adopt crypto technologies in the company’s video games intensified this week.www.bloomberg.com
luffie
Member
Hey, don't forget me, BLIZZARD!
Gp1
Member
I really can't understand this kind of complaint.
Ok. Everybody knows that NFT sucks, that Ubi wants to explore that angle, that these employees can express their positions as much as they want and that UBI can simply don't give a F about what their developers think.
So there are only two options:
Swallow it, and go develop their beloved UBI franchise blockbusters filled with NFT, DLC and every other devilish acronym etc.
Quit and go develop their groundbreaking fun blockbuster with someone else franchises and money.
I don't believe that leaking this kind of info to "social knight" Schreier would help in anything besides sounds like pure whining (not even considering the NDA breach angle) of someone that don't have the guts to quit and find a position in a better company. Especially in a hot market like software.
Ok. Everybody knows that NFT sucks, that Ubi wants to explore that angle, that these employees can express their positions as much as they want and that UBI can simply don't give a F about what their developers think.
So there are only two options:
Swallow it, and go develop their beloved UBI franchise blockbusters filled with NFT, DLC and every other devilish acronym etc.
Quit and go develop their groundbreaking fun blockbuster with someone else franchises and money.
I don't believe that leaking this kind of info to "social knight" Schreier would help in anything besides sounds like pure whining (not even considering the NDA breach angle) of someone that don't have the guts to quit and find a position in a better company. Especially in a hot market like software.
The Alien
Banned
Thanks. Assumed something of that nature.
yurinka
Member
As someone who worked at Ubisoft, I can tell you that any topic or decision is freely debated there and there are opinions of any kind, including some very informed and experienced opinions vs random uninformed opinions. There are over 20000 people working there so obviously it's imposible to have everyone agreeing on everything. There's always debate or different viewpoints, which I think it's normal since people aren't robots.
There's no such thing there as 'Ubisoft' as entity there or some evil management mandating to some oppresed workers to do stuff. They pitch, debate and agree ideas, are open for debate or suggestions, look at what people thinks ot what the data says and keep evolving and iterating the stuff, taking each one the decisions that has to take depending on their role/job position while typically following some basic and flexible editorial vision, best practices and guidelines (which get updated from time to time and are also open for debate).
They talk in Mana about any random topic: from posts or channels about game design where someone shares some cool GDC talk, or dissect some game design aspect from some random recent game, to programing stuff debating about the implementation of certain thing in a specific game of the competition, or to some the new version of whatever library/tool/engine/random thing, to other ones for fighting game fans discussing some EVO fights, to some exec (including the CEO) or big guy from some big project making an internal AMA where any random worker aks whatever he wants to that person. Or they share photos or stuff from a Christmas party, or share their thoughts about any past, present or future random stuff internal or external to Ubisoft as it is this case.
Everybody in the company interested on these topics see these posts and is free to comment there whatever they think. They freely debate in a constructive way and provide they good points they can, learn from this (plus from a ton of other sources) and then each person take their own decisions in the area they cover in their job position/role for their project(s).
Obviously there is a heriarchy, but everyone has some freedom of choice inside their area, is expected to be a good professional and team worker so will listen his boss, his team and also is in contact with people from other people in the same position than them but in other projects (let's say a creative director, is also in contact with the creative directors of the other projects so they share their work, ideas, good practices, doubts, problems, etc. and learn from very experienced and talented folks of that specific area).
So there isn't an evil boss with a whip mandating their slaves to do certain stuff, and also isn't a communist utopy or a cooperative. It's a company where there is pretty good internal communication, with you're free to have your own opinion and have certain freedom of choice and where people trust their experienced, successful and talented colleagues, learn from each other and end applying what they think makes sense. But obviously they're human, so like everybody else, they also make some mistakes, some have bad habits that are difficult and sometimes people is wrong.
Regarding the Mana posts, everyone interested/involved on every topic can write them or comment them. From the CEO to a junior tester. You can see there execs, leads, juniors or seniors from any area. It isn't "the Ubisoft entity" says a thing and the workers complain. It's "a coworker posts something and the ones who want comment about it if desired, obviously knowing who is who, they aren't annonymous users". Like in any forum or social media, there are hot topics that cause more debate and generate more likes or comments and other ones that get ignored. In a few cases there are heated debates but the overal mood is to be polite, constructive and professional. It's a tool to share knowledge and improve internal communication.
But the point is that to work there is cool, fine and also have nice salaries and benefits (maybe not the best ones of the market but still pretty good), where like in any job you may have some asshole boss or coworker (they are people, not robots, and humans aren't perfect) but generally people there is nice, professional and normal, like in most places. Nothing as the hell that yellow, sensationalist gaming 'journalists' haters like this folk makes you think. People not happy there could easily move to the competition, but these over 20000 workers stay there because they want (so because they are happy there), nobody forces them to stay. Obviosly like in any company every year there's some people that joins and some that leave or get fired but as normal in every place, most people stays there.
As happened before with 3D visuals vs 2D sprites, digital vs physical games, console games vs arcade games, mobile gaming vs console gaming, disc vs cartridge, analog stick vs dpad, online MP vs local MP, F2P vs paid, DLC/mtx vs no DLC/mtx, GaaS vs GaaP and a long etc. there's some people who sees the new thing as something evil and apocalyptic that will kill gaming, while other people see it as something with potential if well implemented after some iterations. Both between gamers and between devs.
So they can use it only for cosmetics without affecting gameplay at all, and don't even need to be 'bad for the environment' as you say.
They simply offer devs another revenue share: to get a cut of these player to player transactions to sell each other in-game items.
So if there is something bad or evil isn't the NFT themselves or the concept behind them, but particular implementation that some specific game can do, as happens with everything.
There's no such thing there as 'Ubisoft' as entity there or some evil management mandating to some oppresed workers to do stuff. They pitch, debate and agree ideas, are open for debate or suggestions, look at what people thinks ot what the data says and keep evolving and iterating the stuff, taking each one the decisions that has to take depending on their role/job position while typically following some basic and flexible editorial vision, best practices and guidelines (which get updated from time to time and are also open for debate).
They talk in Mana about any random topic: from posts or channels about game design where someone shares some cool GDC talk, or dissect some game design aspect from some random recent game, to programing stuff debating about the implementation of certain thing in a specific game of the competition, or to some the new version of whatever library/tool/engine/random thing, to other ones for fighting game fans discussing some EVO fights, to some exec (including the CEO) or big guy from some big project making an internal AMA where any random worker aks whatever he wants to that person. Or they share photos or stuff from a Christmas party, or share their thoughts about any past, present or future random stuff internal or external to Ubisoft as it is this case.
Everybody in the company interested on these topics see these posts and is free to comment there whatever they think. They freely debate in a constructive way and provide they good points they can, learn from this (plus from a ton of other sources) and then each person take their own decisions in the area they cover in their job position/role for their project(s).
Obviously there is a heriarchy, but everyone has some freedom of choice inside their area, is expected to be a good professional and team worker so will listen his boss, his team and also is in contact with people from other people in the same position than them but in other projects (let's say a creative director, is also in contact with the creative directors of the other projects so they share their work, ideas, good practices, doubts, problems, etc. and learn from very experienced and talented folks of that specific area).
So there isn't an evil boss with a whip mandating their slaves to do certain stuff, and also isn't a communist utopy or a cooperative. It's a company where there is pretty good internal communication, with you're free to have your own opinion and have certain freedom of choice and where people trust their experienced, successful and talented colleagues, learn from each other and end applying what they think makes sense. But obviously they're human, so like everybody else, they also make some mistakes, some have bad habits that are difficult and sometimes people is wrong.
Regarding the Mana posts, everyone interested/involved on every topic can write them or comment them. From the CEO to a junior tester. You can see there execs, leads, juniors or seniors from any area. It isn't "the Ubisoft entity" says a thing and the workers complain. It's "a coworker posts something and the ones who want comment about it if desired, obviously knowing who is who, they aren't annonymous users". Like in any forum or social media, there are hot topics that cause more debate and generate more likes or comments and other ones that get ignored. In a few cases there are heated debates but the overal mood is to be polite, constructive and professional. It's a tool to share knowledge and improve internal communication.
But the point is that to work there is cool, fine and also have nice salaries and benefits (maybe not the best ones of the market but still pretty good), where like in any job you may have some asshole boss or coworker (they are people, not robots, and humans aren't perfect) but generally people there is nice, professional and normal, like in most places. Nothing as the hell that yellow, sensationalist gaming 'journalists' haters like this folk makes you think. People not happy there could easily move to the competition, but these over 20000 workers stay there because they want (so because they are happy there), nobody forces them to stay. Obviosly like in any company every year there's some people that joins and some that leave or get fired but as normal in every place, most people stays there.
The thing is that this isn't workers complaining about something their boss wants to force them to do. It's just people from a team/company openly debating about a (for some) controversial topic, as always happen.
As happened before with 3D visuals vs 2D sprites, digital vs physical games, console games vs arcade games, mobile gaming vs console gaming, disc vs cartridge, analog stick vs dpad, online MP vs local MP, F2P vs paid, DLC/mtx vs no DLC/mtx, GaaS vs GaaP and a long etc. there's some people who sees the new thing as something evil and apocalyptic that will kill gaming, while other people see it as something with potential if well implemented after some iterations. Both between gamers and between devs.
Yes, for gaming NFT are simply digital items that players can sell to each other (so a digital 2nd hand market) inside a secure environment (blockchain) that makes sure there isn't scams, cheats, etc. and verifies the ownership of each item.
So they can use it only for cosmetics without affecting gameplay at all, and don't even need to be 'bad for the environment' as you say.
They simply offer devs another revenue share: to get a cut of these player to player transactions to sell each other in-game items.
So if there is something bad or evil isn't the NFT themselves or the concept behind them, but particular implementation that some specific game can do, as happens with everything.
Last edited:
BusierDonkey
Member
Seems like a perfect time for Microsoft to acquire another company on the cheap
A.Romero
Member
Great post, thanks for the insight.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Disagree.
Your post (including the stuff I excluded) makes it sound like everything isnt a bad idea, it's just how it's implemented.
In life, some things are just a bad deal even if some people are willing to buy it because the overall concept itself is sketchy.
It's like $5 horse armour, $5 dashboard art or some payday loan store offering people loans at 20% interest. Even though it's legal and some people will buy, it doesn't mean it's not shady money grab at its core.
yurinka
Member
The fact is that the horse armor was an overpriced shitty dlc, an example of bad implementation that people hated specially back then when weren't used to dlcs. But over time they did iterate and improve the dlc idea and found a better balance between pricing and content. And as of today we're in a point where players accepted dlc to a point where a huge portion of the gaming market revenue comes from add-ons (dlc-iap-season passes) and players prefer it to pay to start playing a game they didn't test before.
So what was bad was the specific implementation of the horse armor, not the DLC content. As far as I remember there are many cases like TLOU or The Witcher 3 where people loved their dlcs.
So same goes with NFTs and play to earn. Players prefer to play for free over to play paying. And I assume they will prefer to play earning money over to play not earning money. And I also think that there is nothing wrong on allowing a 2nd hand market of in-game items in the concept itself, in the same way there wasn't nothing wrong in the concept of selling add-ons.
If something, if there is something wrong with some of these early implementations, that as happened with any new market or big innovation the first early implementations typically are messy and weak but over time will be iterated game after game until they reach a point where both players and devs are happy.
BigBooper
Member
Why would you make the argument that there's nothing inherently or morally wrong with NFTs? Maybe some think there is because of the environmental impact, but that's a very tiny percentage of the people complaining about them being in games.
Most gamers complain about them because they believe it will lead to worse game design and games will be more piecemeal and have less content in the future. Comparing it to dlc is funny and apt because that is what has happened there too.
Game sequels in a series where they added lootboxes or dlc have almost always had less customization available to people who just buy the game than the first games in a series.
Also, it's dumb to compare huge expansions for games to the horse armor. There were expansion packs sold long before Oblivion.
Most gamers complain about them because they believe it will lead to worse game design and games will be more piecemeal and have less content in the future. Comparing it to dlc is funny and apt because that is what has happened there too.
Game sequels in a series where they added lootboxes or dlc have almost always had less customization available to people who just buy the game than the first games in a series.
Also, it's dumb to compare huge expansions for games to the horse armor. There were expansion packs sold long before Oblivion.
yurinka
Member
You're welcome. I edited it to clarify a few extra things.
Because there is nothing inherently or morally wrong in allowing a (secure) 2nd hand market where players sell each other digital items (in gamin, in-game items or user generated content), which is the NFT concept.
It's like allowing modders to sell costumes they make for Street Fighter characters, and allow the ones who buy them to sell them to other players. Or to allow a Pokemon player to sell other players these Pokemons they will no longer use. Or to allow a Minecraft player to sell a house they made to another player. Or to allow a Dreams player to sell a game he created to other players. Or to allow a Final Fantasy player to sell the potions or low level weapons they will no longer use to other players. Or to allow an eSport player to sell the weapon he did use in some world championship finals. There is a lot of potential for great implementations. And from these transactions, the gamedev and the NFT store get a small revenue share so this is why companies are interested on it.
There is nothing wrong in this concept and nothing that implies that it has to damage the gameplay. If something, what it will mean is that since there's a ton of potential to make extra money with this, they could focus on this, specially in cosmetics and stuff that doesn't have more effect in gameplay than an XP boost or early unlock (having them as something optional doesn't imply they must have a too grindy game), and to replace older, traditional IAP/dlc focused monetization, so lootboxes and so on.
The environmental impact is only wrong with some NFTs, other ones like the one that will use Ubisoft have the same environmental impact than a forum posts: basically nothing.
Last edited:
BigBooper
Member
You misunderstood my point. I was saying why would you argue that point when barely anyone is arguing that it is inherently or morally wrong. The rest of my post elaborated on that.
OldBoyGamer
Banned
Are you available for children party’s?
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Well on point (1) the game devs could always do this w/o blockchain; Blizzard did with Diablo III for instance. This doesn't require blockchain in any way. Why don't most devs do this? Well ask yourself that, and think about how it might relate to your point (2). Particularly in online shared world games, you end up with a shared game world full of people only there to farm for items to sell, ignoring any real teaming up that makes the game fun for those just trying to play.
Yes, people do this anyways, because there are generally ways to transfer items in games, and people can use ebay or have discord channels dedicated to buying/selling and to your point it increases the risk of a scam, but the games are banning this behavior not just because of scams, but because of what it does to the shared game world.
NFTs do offer the "service" of offloading the store itself to someone else to game devs, likely making it simpler from an accounting perspective.. they get a cut, aren't directly involved with the transaction (indirectly they have to be as the auction houses generally are tied to the game's backend in order to truly do the transfer of the "item"), and thus aren't involved in any of the complications of running a storefront that pays people out.
But there is still a reason devs haven't done this in the past; most gamers dont want a game that blatantly encourages item farming to the point where you have people playing who don't really care about the game itself.
It think Ubisoft and others are just attaching themselves to something that got a lot of press, and honestly sort of failed to "read the room."
amnesia
Member
This. Also Valve, they've been doing this for years, no blockchain needed. It's really sad that Ubisoft is pushing this NFT garbage so hard. While most of the games they publish are meh, there are a few that I love. They need to start listening to their employees and the community and kill the whole NFT project.
yurinka
Member
As a dev of a studio that tried to follow the Diablo III example there were two major blockers: security issues that could be solved with the blockchain and regulatory concerns related to players being able to earn real money equivalent stuff investing real money, which made it somewhat similar to gambling, so we avoided it. NFTs would solve the regulatory issues.
To have farming or not depends of the game design of the game, not related with NFT. Same goes with the NFT usage, doesn't need to be linked to the gameplay, NFTs could be used to allow players sell mods, or items or games made in games like Dreams/Little Big Planet/Minecraft/etc. Or in games with exactly the same gameplay as current RPGs but to allow them to sell stuff from the inventory they won't no longer use. There are things people already do in current games with potential to be sold to other players but now they do it for free, because it's fun.
What NFTs provide is a safe and official way to allow players sell each other stuff, removing the scams.
So players would prefer it because not only allows them earn money, but because it's secure.
Devs would prefer it because to get a cut of these transactions gives them an additional revenue share.
Yes, the idea is that players generate or receive digital items from the game. And they they can sell them to other users via stores or transactions not controlled or approved by the devs. The blockchain would make sure these transactions are legit and that who is telling you that has a level 25 Pikachu for this game really owns it so with that transaction you'll get it.
So in the same way that there are 3rd party stores not controlled by the devs where you can sell or buy 2nd hand physical games (devs don't get a cut of these transactions), in these 3rd party NFT stores not controlled by the devs players would sell or buy 2nd hand digital games or in-game items (devs would get a cut of these transactions as mandated by the blockchain). If there is some regulation or something I assume would be applied to these stores, not to the gamedevs, and would be like the 2nd hand physical stuff stores.
Again, NFT concept doesn't imply and isn't related to farming. The concept (secure player to player 2nd hand market of in-game items) is good and has potential to do great stuff. Which can be good or bad is particular implementations as happens with any type of game, business model or feature.
Notice the first Ubisoft implementation: it's only cosmetic items, something that itself doesn'tt imply farming and doesn't imply to have any effect on gameplay. To involve it with farming or not depends on the implementation of each game or item and if you require to play hundreds of hours to get this item or not.
With customization items, they could make weekly customization items give aways that you earn them only by loging in that week. It would work not only as a monetization feature, but also as a retention feature, encouraging the player to come back to get the free item. If they like it they could get it for themselves an if not they could sell it to other players.
For sure many of the first implementations will suck, as always happens with the first implementations of everything. Then over time they will take note of what works and what doesn't, what players accept and what don't accept. And they will learn and iterate improving it reaching a point where a huge amount of players love it/accept it and is profitable enough for the devs. Obviously no type of game and feature is loved by 100% of the players because every person has different tastes.
Last edited: