You didn't read what I wrote, I'll try and rephrase it. I am talking about NFTs where you as the owner of the NFT control who you can transfer it to, I explicitly mentioned this. If you can do this, then it can be a solution to the current problem. Because then you simply transfer your ownership rights to your new account.
This is true. The assumption I make is that we would be living in a scenario where they would honour the ownership transfer. I'm just saying it's possible for NFTs to work like this, not that this will actually happen.
That's the problem, though: if they wanted to allow this, it's easy to do — for example, GOG has a Steam import feature but relatively few publishers allow their content to be used that way. Spending an enormous amount of money switching to NFTs would just be a distraction from the business reasons why those publishers are blocking that capability.
If you are living under the assumption that they would honour ownership, you don't need NFTs in the first place. The whole thing can be much more efficiently implemented without them.
If "the current problem" is "how do I, the player, get around this company's ban on my account," sure. But from Ubisoft's perspective, "the current problem" is "we banned this player and want them to stay banned."
I guess it depends on how you would implement such a system. They could have a ban on the game ownership NFT too, but it doesn't have to work like that. Banning is usually done on the account level, it's entirely possible that the company keeps track of your hardware fingerprint so you can't just go and buy a new game.
In this case it's probably just a weird edge case that triggered the account deletion, I think he'll get his account back.
Ubisoft or any other company for that matter doesn't want people to trade their games, DLC or accounts.
They killed the used market they aren't going to bring it back.
