Kuroialty

Activision Patents Bad Matchmaking to Push Microtransactions

25 posts in this topic

Just a few excerpts from this new patent by Activision:

Quote

A system and method is provided that drives microtransactions in multiplayer video games. The system may include a microtransaction arrange matches to influence game-related purchases. For instance, the system may match a more expert/marquee player with a junior player to encourage the junior player to make game-related purchases of items possessed/used by the marquee player. A junior player may wish to emulate the marquee player by obtaining weapons or other items used by the marquee player.

(...)

For example, in one implementation, the system may include a microtransaction engine that arranges matches to influence game-related purchases. For instance, the microtransaction engine may match a more expert/marquee player with a junior player to encourage the junior player to make game-related purchases of items possessed/used by the marquee player. A junior player may wish to emulate the marquee player by obtaining weapons or other items used by the marquee player.

The microtransaction engine may analyze various items used by marquee players and, if the items are being promoted for sale, match the marquee player with another player (e.g., a junior player) that does not use or own the items. Similarly, the microtransaction engine may identify items to be promoted, identify marquee players that use those items, and match the marquee players with other players who do not use those items. In this manner, the microtransaction engine may leverage the matchmaking abilities described herein to influence purchase decisions for game-related purchases.

In one implementation, the microtransaction engine may target particular players to make game-related purchases based on their interests. For example, the microtransaction engine may identify a junior player to match with a marquee player based on a player profile of the junior player. In a particular example, the junior player may wish to become an expert sniper in a game (e.g., as determined from the player profile). The microtransaction engine may match the junior player with a player that is a highly skilled sniper in the game. In this manner, the junior player may be encouraged to make game-related purchases such as a rifle or other item used by the marquee player.

In one implementation, when a player makes a game-related purchase, the microtransaction engine may encourage future purchases by matching the player (e.g., using matchmaking described herein) in a gameplay session that will utilize the game-related purchase. Doing so may enhance a level of enjoyment by the player for the game-related purchase, which may encourage future purchases. For example, if the player purchased a particular weapon, the microtransaction engine may match the player in a gameplay session in which the particular weapon is highly effective, giving the player an impression that the particular weapon was a good purchase. This may encourage the player to make future purchases to achieve similar gameplay results.

Also a related video report/rant on the topic which I haven't fully watched yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair competition and capitalism really go against each other, this is just another example. I used to worry endelessly about the shit game companies did, nowadays i just pay and play games that are driving by genuine desing and passion (and the soul sucking piece of shit that is wot). AAA gaming has been dead (with a FEW exeptions like soulsborne) for the last 8 years at least, so really this just widens the gap between normies (that have conquered the industry) and people that actually enjoy a challenge/interesting premise/interesting gameplay. If companies could charge 130ish dollars per game (what games in the 80s costed ajusted for inflation) it would be muuch harder for people to swollow this shit show that the industry has devolved to (a crash, à la '83, would be the only way to stop this trends, but nowadays with international digital distributions that will never happen, so RIP).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, on the plus side this means WG cant put it in WoT, and its instead going to be going into CoD which anyone with half a brain and older than like 13 doesnt give a damn about anyway. 

 

But fucking hell...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is brilliant!

Not only are they milking the whales to the maximum this way, they are also decreasing the server costs by discouraging new players who are not willing to buy into this practice from actually playing their 25th iteration of the same game!

The biggest joke of this must be them being allowed to create a patent like this in the first place...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Assassin7 said:

Well, on the plus side this means WG cant put it in WoT, and its instead going to be going into CoD which anyone with half a brain and older than like 13 doesnt give a damn about anyway. 

 

But fucking hell...

Not actually. If WG were so inclined they could license the patent from Activision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't buy anything from acti, simple.

 

But then, there's this little fucking gem:

Can this cesspool of idiocy and authoritarian left called eu just fucking desintegrate already? Also: inb4 v4-exit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tman450 said:

WG has a patent on unfair matchmaking too, although they claim they have never used it.

 

 

MM is not unfair, it is not great for sure, you may say bad but not unfair. What is unfair is same tier tank balance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, nabucodonsor said:

MM is not unfair, it is not great for sure, you may say bad but not unfair. What is unfair is same tier tank balance. 

I know it's not, I'm saying WG patented a Rigged matchmaking system but doesn't use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tman450 said:

WG has a patent on unfair matchmaking too, although they claim they have never used it.

 

 

it wasn't even unfair. it was a system to make you top tier if you were losing a lot and bottom tier if you were winning a lot. it wasn't even rigging, it was indented to try and make it more fun for players on the face of it.

 

and its pretty obvious to see its not in the game. tier placement is still random

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Assassin7 said:

it wasn't even unfair. it was a system to make you top tier if you were losing a lot and bottom tier if you were winning a lot. it wasn't even rigging, it was indented to try and make it more fun for players on the face of it.

 

and its pretty obvious to see its not in the game. tier placement is still random

Using this would be bias and to try and pull everyone closer to a 50%WR which would however kill the last shred of what's left of a competitive scene, glad they didn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Assassin7 said:

it wasn't even unfair. it was a system to make you top tier if you were losing a lot and bottom tier if you were winning a lot. it wasn't even rigging, it was indented to try and make it more fun for players on the face of it.

 

and its pretty obvious to see its not in the game. tier placement is still random

I already said it wasn't in the game. I was just pointing out that WG had a similar matchmaking patent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys crack me up some times.  So, am I to understand correctly that you guys think that programmers, game developers, and publishers should all work for free as some kind of gamer charity? 

This is nothing more than an attempt to monetize content that a lot of money was invested to create in a fast moving economy.  People don't like shelling out a big up-front fee for a game and publishers have a bad habit of DGAF about games that they have already been paid for.  Micro transactions keep both the developer and the player financially engaged over a longer game lifespan.  They are constantly pushed to upgrade and improve in order to keep the player base active and spending. 

How is what activision patented really any different than having elite athletes wearing brand name shoes and swinging brand name clubs/rackets?  The ability of unicum golfers hawk clubs to pubby golfers is what enables there to be a professional tour and make unicum golfers into millionaires.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there is a difference, top athletes are not top because of the equipment, but because of the skills. And in sports there are rating systems that define the matchmaking, to make matches competitive and interesting for the audience. 

Everyone is fine with microtransactions, when it doesn't affect the gameplay. Why can't WG sell tank skins or what not? Or even implement the lootbox system, again with potential rewards that don't affect the gameplay. Take Dota 2 for example. 

 

If noob is constantly matched against elite player with the only purpose of pushing microtransactions, that is bullshit way to earn money, and severely damages the overall gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, 3MAJ86 said:

But there is a difference, top athletes are not top because of the equipment, but because of the skills. And in sports there are rating systems that define the matchmaking, to make matches competitive and interesting for the audience. 

Everyone is fine with microtransactions, when it doesn't affect the gameplay. Why can't WG sell tank skins or what not? Or even implement the lootbox system, again with potential rewards that don't affect the gameplay. Take Dota 2 for example. 

If noob is constantly matched against elite player with the only purpose of pushing microtransactions, that is bullshit way to earn money, and severely damages the overall gameplay.

As long as you are going into it with your eyes open and you understand that its your money to spend or hold onto, why should they not be allowed to try and maximize their earnings?  They don't create games for players, they create them for shareholders.  Its their job to push the limits of monetization as hard as they can until their consumers push back.  The market will decide when its gone too far, not the sensibilities of a small percentage of the elite gaming oligarchy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you play a game that stacks the odds against for no other reason than to force you to buy something? 

 

I think that is neither fair, nor competitive and most of all - not fun, which is one of the major purposes of the games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, 3MAJ86 said:

Would you play a game that stacks the odds against for no other reason than to force you to buy something? 

 

I think that is neither fair, nor competitive and most of all - not fun, which is one of the major purposes of the games. 

No, I probably wouldn't and then the game would probably die and the developer would learn that they had pushed too far.  Maybe however, pubbies will like it when they get pulled up into games with unicums every time they eat another $5 scooby snack - then maybe it will work until the unicums get tired of carrying bad pubbies.  Of course, if the unicums get a cut of that $5 every time they convince their pubbies to spend . . . well, then the market served everybody.  Its a novel idea and it will be interesting to see where it lands.

"I'm telling you guys, I'd have never made that shot without my improved gun laying drive"

ching-ching

Pubby has a new set of golf clubs to brag about that he does not know how to use, publisher has more rubles, and unicum just earned another $0.50 for selling out.  win-win.  Whats not to love?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18-10-2017 at 1:33 PM, orzel286 said:

But then, there's this little fucking gem:

Can this cesspool of idiocy and authoritarian left called eu just fucking desintegrate already? Also: inb4 v4-exit.

This stuff will implemented 10 times in the US before once in the EU

Its by law forbidden to check content of inet data, since this can be used to slow down certain kinds of traffic and so on (atleast in the Netherlands)

This copyright crap will probably never pass (hopefully)

ps: in germany however half youtube is blocked because of copyright nonsense, same tons of people get fined for downloading, germans are very much in the ``ordnung must sein`` in regards to internet (so perhaps we do get screwed over here...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, GehakteMolen said:

ps: in germany however half youtube is blocked because of copyright nonsense

This is no longer true. Some time last year, some major documents were signed, so it's much better now. I don't remember when i saw "this video is not available in your country" last time to be honest...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2017 at 1:01 AM, Kuroialty said:

Just a few excerpts from this new patent by Activision:

Also a related video report/rant on the topic which I haven't fully watched yet.

WG can sue them since they patented this idea years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2017 at 7:33 AM, orzel286 said:

Don't buy anything from acti, simple.

 

But then, there's this little fucking gem:

Can this cesspool of idiocy and authoritarian left called eu just fucking desintegrate already? Also: inb4 v4-exit.

When I thought the goons who run our governments couldn't surprise me anymore, they even hide shit like this too. Wow!

I recall hearing years ago that the EU squashed a study on second hand smoke because it went against the narrative that it was bad for you. In other words, the study showed that it wasn't bad for you.

Thanks for sharing this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/10/2017 at 8:39 PM, Fabunil said:

This is brilliant!

Not only are they milking the whales to the maximum this way, they are also decreasing the server costs by discouraging new players who are not willing to buy into this practice from actually playing their 25th iteration of the same game!

The biggest joke of this must be them being allowed to create a patent like this in the first place...

Yeah whats the difference between milking whales in Activision games, and milking whales in WoT for the latest powercreep premium?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, 21Blackjack said:

Yeah whats the difference between milking whales in Activision games, and milking whales in WoT for the latest powercreep premium?

one is patented rigged matchmaking design to make players pay to improve or be on par with better per battle (aka rigged matchmaker, and in a $60 game no less) and the latter is just really dogshit balance because everything needs armor kappa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's absolutely insane about this potential eu law is: just think how much content is user-generated. And where. Forums? Blogs? Ok, let's use the term "mass user" - how many is a "mass"? Are 3 people a crowd already? What about sites outside of eu, if they don't implement this will ISPs be forced by law to block those sites? Imagine if wotlabs are forced to develop or buy some content id system.

 

This is insane. And it's half step away (or less) from full-blown internets censorship (remember all those times when developers didn't like a game review, so they slapped the creator with a copyright infingement?....). What the actual fuck.

The spot of hope is: I remember the acta outrage in Poland, all the basement dwellers were outside and protesting. If our govs aren't sneaky about those changes it will happen again. Also: 4chan. 

 

WE WON'T LET NORMIES TOUCH OUR INTERWEBZ REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.