Activision Patents Micro-Transaction Based Online Matchmaking

[demoman_chaos]

Here is a link to the registered patent:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=9789406.PN.&OS=PN/9789406&RS=PN/9789406

It reads, "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."

So basically they are matching people who spend little against those who spend a lot in order to try and "encourage" the freeloaders to dump cash.

 

[Tanis]

...amazed EA didn't do it first.

 

[Saelune]

Does that mean other companies legally wont be allowed to do it too?

If so, then Activision did a good thing actually...sorta...

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Does that mean other companies legally wont be allowed to do it too?

If so, then Activision did a good thing actually...sorta...

If this thing catches on in Activision games, they're just going to start selling licenses to other publishers and developers.

 

[gigastar]

Just when you thought this industry couldnt be any more cancerous, here comes Activision sinking to whole new depths.

 

[Pseudonym]

This seems to be published in januari 2016 so this might already be in the most recent call of duty of something.

Does that mean other companies legally wont be allowed to do it too?

If so, then Activision did a good thing actually...sorta...

Yes but the sheer level of bad will on display here is still worrying. Both because of the blatand patent trolling and because of the idea being patented itself.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I can't really understand what the "matchmaking" system is doing getting involved here. This idea of newer players seeing better equipped and more flashy looking players is nothing new. It's been a part of online games for as long as I can remember. Seeing and admiring other player's costumes in CoV, seeing the cool mounts in WoW, the cool looking armours/colours in other games is part of the experience. It gives newer players something to aim for and rewards older players who get to enjoy showing off their hard earned bling.

I play Warframe and cosmetics are an integral part of the game. Most vets quip that "FashionFrame" is the only real endgame, in fact. You can see some great designs and note when a player has put in particular effort. I often ask what colour the player is using (they come in colour palletes), the name of their cape or armour piece, etc.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with vets looking great and being a carrot for new players to chase as they play the game. I played WoW as hard as I did back in Burning Crusade just because I wanted the amazing looking mount I saw pass me by in Ironforge one time while I was still new. Perhaps intentionally matchmaking potential spenders with great-looking vets is a little shady, will have to see what comes of it.

 

[FalloutJack]

Meanwhile, the concensus would appear to be that matchmaking doesn't work, so I dunno why they bothered.

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

Meanwhile, the concensus would appear to be that matchmaking doesn't work, so I dunno why they bothered.

Well it gives insight why 'it doesn't work'.

If they try to optimize things like that, along the 'fair/balanced' teams algorithm end result might be it achieves none in particular. Worryingly, it could be it does not achieve the latter, thus general feel that macthmaking is broken. However internally, they see it drove up their micro transaction sales by 10-20% so for the company it's a stellar work (+5% profit gain on any optimization - at least in business I work in - makes project viable to deploy). It could also be that they i.e. match people with skins and pimped out characters (cosmetics only) to play with people who hasn't dropped a dime extra, to make the latter feel like peasants and put in some of that extra peer pressure, people who have history of purchases with people who already bought newest batch of fluff to encourage the re-occurance of behaviour pattern etc.
Man I'd love to have access to their data warehouses on sales and customer behaviour. Probably a paradise to data scientist.

edit:
This is firing squad bad publicity to a company. Wish we had a free mass media covering game industry to burn the company on the stake for this.

They even included the Pavlov's dog reward system to deliver positive feedback and train you to be less resilient to these practises in the future. If you did snap and bought the item, next matching session priority is to put you in advantageous position to ensure you win... Screw all the players from opposite team and their gameplay, for next few minutes they are just a fodder to enhance your addiction.

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

Does that mean other companies legally wont be allowed to do it too?

If so, then Activision did a good thing actually...sorta...

Nah, it's likely only in USA. In EU it is close to impossible to patent algorithm like that. And even if they do it would be pretty easy for competitor to dispute that their implementation is original and differs.

It is likely an attempt to secure their business, keep competition in check and to scare off any company that isn't big enough to cover legal fees of potential dispute. They can show the patent and then in court see exactly what others do in this regard. It's up to people without patent to prove they deployed it differently, not just stole and copy pasted it.

 

[megs1120]

Glad we spent the last three years fighting over whether women should be allowed to work in the game industry instead of fighting back against the creep of game-breaking microtransactions.

 

[megs1120]

Mark my words, The Escapist will have no opinion to present about this microtransaction patent, I doubt they'll even post an article about it. WTF.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Snip.

I completely understand what you're saying about gear having always been a driving force in games like WoW and Warframe. I made a decent number of people jealous with the Swift White Hawkstrider mount I got off of heroic Magister's Terrace back during Burning Crusade. The differentiating factor here is intent. Blizzard didn't purposely add people to my LFG party just so they could see my cool mount. No one in Warframe is being led towards more advanced players with gear the developers know the new player wants based on analysis of their play-time or browsing in the shop. What was happening by chance and normal dynamics now has the potential to be surgically targeted, creating an endless loop of LOOK AT THIS, ISN'T THIS AWESOME? YOU SHOULD BUY THIS! IT WOULD LOOK FUCKING AWESOME SAUCE BRO. DON'T YOU WANT TO BE LIKE THIS GUY? OPEN UP THAT WALLET ***** AND PAY UP.

Now, does that mean anything to you or me? Maybe, maybe not. I don't give a crap about cosmetics or lootboxes as long as I can ignore them. If you're a kid who doesn't know any better or an adult with an addictive personality these companies are essentially assaulting you with the urge to buy, buy, buy, though. Much harder to ignore.

Plus, with Shadow of War and now Battlefront 2 working these things into the actual gameplay progression we're starting to have a real problem on our hands. Envy at another player's stuff is not the issue, as you said, that's always been around. It's how Activision wants to actively make the entire matchmaking and gameplay experience into one giant micro-transaction circle jerk to drive players towards buying cosmetics/boosts/etc. In my opinion the industry has officially gone too far. When games are basing their entire progression around loot boxes and it's possible to gain advantage over someone else simply by spending more money it really shows what publishers think of their customers. Fortunately, those who debate whether games are art finally have an answer. According to EA, WB, and Activision, no, they most certainly are not. They are products meant to milk as much money out of the purchaser as possible.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Mark my words, The Escapist will have no opinion to present about this microtransaction patent, I doubt they'll even post an article about it. WTF.

I mean, they don't have any writers left. I wouldn't hold your breath for anything other than the satirical Taco News bits.

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

Glad we spent the last three years fighting over whether women should be allowed to work in the game industry instead of fighting back against the creep of game-breaking microtransactions.

Perhaps it would be good to come to conlusion that:
Discrimination and favourism based on employee's gender is illegal and it should stay this way. Enforced to the exact letter of the law.

I wholeheartedly agree that time was wasted on wrestling shadows, while actual threat built up. I would also note, that it isn't time to pass the blame on who got played by whom into nonsensical dance, who started it etc.
Instead have a stern look at media and corporate marketing departments who fueled social media outrage couldron and kept BS spinning while their financial departments and data scientists worked on ways to part all gamers regardless of their inherent characteristics with their money, beyond legality of offering a product or service for money.

Publishers and gaming news outlets are acting border line criminal. They don't commit crime, only because state legislation is behind on these schemes. I am openly for legislative ban of such monetization models. Argumentation that it could be done 'correctly', so hardly anyone involved could be harmed falls flat vs. reality of what is going on.

Edit:

ONE MORE THING, essentially this patent reveals that 'it's only cosmetics' argument is a fallacy. If you are rewarded for purchase of cosmetics by being pitted against players who are predispositioned to lose vs. your team and get the same reward as you would for defeating team composed of people on similar ability to yours you essentialy paid to win. I am aware that this isn't concious decision of the buyer but intentional outcome delivered by game creators is the same.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I thought I saw on Extra Credits that they can't patent game mechanics. Well they can try but it won't hold up. Although really they can keep that one. Also fuck Activision.

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

I thought I saw on Extra Credits that they can't patent game mechanics. Well they can try but it won't hold up. Although really they can keep that one. Also fuck Activision.

The fact they went on to try and get the patent just tells that it is wide spread and highly lucrative. Activision just takes precaution to be in advantageous position vs. any potential trolls which are lured in to wide spread lucrative concepts, that nobody thought about getting patent yet.

 

[CritialGaming]

Fuck me sideways, it is never gonna stop is it?

 

[demoman_chaos]

Spoiler

 

[Bobular]

So this is saying that if I buy a future Activision multiplayer game at full price, they'll have micro-transactions so that I can buy a better gun with +25% damage, +50% rate of fire & looks super cool, but I wont buy it on principle because I've already paid full price for the game so I'm not paying more for a gun.

But now because I didn't buy the gun I'll be automaticity matched up against people who did buy the gun so that I intentionally have no chance to beat them and so my only choice will be to buy the gun so that I'm on an even playing field with the guys who already bought it.

Except that's not right, because I do have another choice, I'm going to choose to not buy and Activision games ever again to avoid getting into that situation.

Bring back the old style FPS multiplayer, where you started with a pistol and had to find other guns & armour on the battlefield, made the playing field dependent on skill and experience rather than levels, gimmicks and spending power.