But why would publishers do that?
I mean. If I bought NFT from Ghost Recon Breakpoint and then want to migrate that stupid skin to Fortnite, why on Earth would Epic allow me to do that?
They want to sell their own cosmetics, right? Not allowing me to use cosmetics i paid Ubisoft to get because there is no money for Epic in it.
Either I'm stupid that I don't understand how any of it works or some assholes found new "get rich quick" scheme in videogames world.
No, you're not stupid. What Mike Shinoda wrote is completely impractical for a hundred reasons, and more to the point, NFTs being involved or not might solve 20% of those reasons at best.
He seems to think than an NFT is like a Lego brick, that you can take away from one Lego set and attach to another Lego set with minimal issues or inconvenience. He thinks when you sell your NFT, you are selling an actual 3D, meshed, textured and coded model from a video game as its own thing, and you can import it in another game. That's obviously not how any of this works.
NFTs are decentralized digital licenses. It's a key that tells a software whether you "own" that one key, but owning that one key will then do whatever the software at the other end is designed to do, which could be anything. Could you in theory use the same NFT to activate ownership of something on two different platforms? Yes. Do you need an NFT to do so? No. It could make the process a bit easier on the developer's side, but that's not the main reason why nobody does that without NFTs. Nothing right now prevents this same thing to happen without NFTs. It technically already happens in some limited forms, since I could for example need to redeem a DLC for a game through a developer's website account, and then make Steam also accept that I own that DLC (see: Total War Warhammer's free content exclusive for having a Total War Access account).
The fact that you can "transfer" an NFT from one end product to another is not the reason why all industries are pushing for them though. Case in point, nobody actually
does that, even after implementing NFTs, they remain connected to a single marketplace/issuer and it's just users of that one platform passing them around inside of it. Ubisoft didn't reach out to Activision and EA to make a deal to debut with cross-franchise NFTs. They just gave them away as a form of in-game item, like any other in-game item ever. Same thing did Molyneux with his soon-to-be scam.
The real "point" of NFTs is to add artificial value to things by creating artificial scarcity, and simultaneously allowing people to play the market game in a decentralized manner. The added value coming from the artificial scarcity of the item connected to the NFT is completely arbitrary (and there is virtually zero legal control over where the money comes or goes), therefore it's stupidly easy to manipulate it via simple monetary operations and social media actions. You can create anything, raise its price as much as you want by selling it to yourself 50 times via sock-puppet accounts, with close to zero losses or risks. Then some muppet who doesn't know any better reads Reddit and Facebook posts (often upvoted thousands of times by bots and upvote farms) or website articles (often undisclosed advertorials) praising cyptos and NFTs as the second coming of Christ, and buys whatever bullshit you are selling for a ridiculous figure thinking it's going
tO ThE moOn. So you immediately cash out for $5,000, you already won and somebody else is stuck with the hot potato.
Maybe the buyer will be lucky and sell it to some other idiot for $6,000. Maybe the whole thing will crash down on them, and they'll be out of $5,000 with nothing to show for it but an ugly jpg cartoon monkey or a 3D house from Molyneux's shit game. It's impossible to predict how or when the house of cards collapses. It's the textbook definition of a speculative bubble.
tl;dr: just like lootboxes were a legally dubious means to monetize from gambling addicts, NFTs will be the legally dubious way to monetize from clueless wannabe brokers.