Activision, now rigging you to buy micro transactions.

[Swalload]

TL;DR Activision just patented a system for Destiny 2 which matches you against players better than you, to motivate you into buying shortcuts with real money.
https://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/...-items-w509288

This seems almost illegal. If not illegal, highly immoral. It targets what potentially is children with underhanded sales tactics. Not only that, but it will intentionally make an unfair match to do so.

Please don't make fucking fake ass post to tarnish the reputation of stuff you hate just because you have zero common sense or maturity.

This is the real thing:

"This was an exploratory patent filed in 2015 by an R&D team working independently from our game studios," an Activision spokesperson tells Glixel. "It has not been implemented in-game."

Bungie also confirmed to Glixel that the technology isn't being used in Destiny 2.

Now change your title to "Activision patented a feature they are not using." And receive the zero attention your post deserves fucking disgusting clickbaiter and liar.

I don't even like Destiny or Activision but you're just as bad if not worse than them.

[Cæli]

this sounds like contrary to the philosophy of blizzard's money making

aren't activision slowing down blizzard ?

[Ravenblade]

From what I understood it's just a patented technology and not even really that spectacular. It is also just a paper patent right now. Even if implemented it doesn't take away the will of choice away from you. You still will be able to say no, and with all things Activision: You should have learned to do that by now

[stellvia]

I think I'm the only one that isn't "outraged" by this. Seems largely like an extension of all the shared social spaces being added to multiplayer games that exist purely for players to show off their phat lewt/cash shop cosmetics to others. Can't muster up much caring, unless I'm totally missing something.

They're looking to intentionally impair your gameplay experience in order to line their pockets. Rather than pair you with good matches, they're going to intentionally toss in fodder picks which will make the game less fun for you blowing up potatoes and less fun for the newbie thats getting smoked and saying everyone cheats. Or the half the matchup that isn't using the OP gun for that map/play mode having to face off against the other half that is crutching on it.

TLDR: They're altering matchmaking not for the good of the game/customers, but for the good of their pocketbook.

[Edge-]

They're looking to intentionally impair your gameplay experience in order to line their pockets. Rather than pair you with good matches, they're going to intentionally toss in fodder picks which will make the game less fun for you blowing up potatoes and less fun for the newbie thats getting smoked and saying everyone cheats. Or the half the matchup that isn't using the OP gun for that map/play mode having to face off against the other half that is crutching on it.

TLDR: They're altering matchmaking not for the good of the game/customers, but for the good of their pocketbook.

That's a part of it, it's not purely matchmaking around it. It's similar to systems that pair veterans and new players up that exist in many online games in that regard. If you note from their descriptions, things like player skill metrics, latency, etc. are still taken into account, this is just adding another layer to that.

TLDR: They're considering adding another layer of checks for matchmaking onto existing matchmaking systems. The existing systems aren't being scrapped, yo.

[draykorinee]

I get people not being outraged but way too many apologists for a scummy patent.

[LaserChild9]

I really don't get the outrage. It's basically using top players as a way to showcase the value of their product, and ensuring the customer feels the value in that purchase.

Would it potentially incentivize more purchases? Sure. So what? People are buying more stuff they want to have, and enjoying what they buy. That's not a "bad thing". Nothing in there suggested they were going to be creating unbalanced matches, which is the only way I'd see this as being "bad", since that would create lower win rates for non-paying customers on purpose.

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.

This sentence here says exactly that. They are going to match a highly skilled player with a less skilled player to encourage the less skilled player to buy gear that the more skilled player has. They are literally going to create unbalanced matches to encourage people to buy stuff. This system is could be great for the less skilled player assuming that the skilled player has been matched down, but if its the other way around that less skilled player is going to find himself in a game where he is completely outmatched and lets his side down just so activision can maybe get a sale.

[Daveon]

Interesting news that's somewhat related... EA scraps a single player Star Wars game to make a different Star Wars game that will probably have microtransactions...

http://www.barrons.com/articles/star...ide-1508339692
and related link https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/17/...isceral-games/

[Torgent]

I get people not being outraged but way too many apologists for a scummy patent.

It's not about being an apologist, it's about understanding what the patent does and does not do. And then realizing that it was not even patented by a game development team. It was an R&D team and has not been implemented into a single game.

[Daveon]

This sentence here says exactly that. They are going to match a highly skilled player with a less skilled player to encourage the less skilled player to buy gear that the more skilled player has. They are literally going to create unbalanced matches to encourage people to buy stuff. This system is could be great for the less skilled player assuming that the skilled player has been matched down, but if its the other way around that less skilled player is going to find himself in a game where he is completely outmatched and lets his side down just so activision can maybe get a sale.

That's not exactly what it says. It says match "with", not match "against". It is likely referring to building a team vs. team lineup, so it could mean each team has a veteran and lesser skilled players are paired with the veterans so the newer players see the guys with all the shiny shop items to encourage them to spend money in the shop.

Now if they sacrifice fairness (always greater skilled players vs. lesser skilled players), then yes, everyone should be upset.

But when you look at matchmaking systems, you don't always get equally skilled sides already, especially when you're mixing skill levels, even when they're trying to do their best to make it fair. Queue times would increase dramatically if they tightened the difference in skill allowed for a match. See WoW Arena matchmaking, Heroes of the Storm Quick Match, Starcraft, and I presume Overwatch Quick Match as well. It doesn't seem to be in their best interest to make matchmaking less fair in their PVP games (HoTS, Overwatch, Starcraft), because if matches are continually unfair, people will stop playing, and the revenue stops altogether.

Also, if you play rated games or pre-made teams, this likely wouldn't affect you at all (assuming they're not intentionally always pitting higher ranking against lower ranking - which would completely invalidate them as competitive games, which they certainly don't want to do, they are counting on revenue from Esports as well).

[Coombs]

Like micro transactions that used to let you buy specific items transforming into a slot machine for exponential gains in profits, this too will be used and eventualy abused. Right now it's the equivalent of matching people in Overwatch with specific skins, but people are already excusing it. This is only going to get worse. Nothing, no legislation, no outrage, is stopping the largest division of entertainment from manipulating consumers, and nothing will ever be done if fuckwads keep allowing it to happen.

We want to say that advertising doesn't work, that 'I don't get fooled by it'. If that were true a billion dollar industry wouldn't exist. Coke and other companies wouldn't pay the money they do for a 30 second add spot during college basketball seasons. Facebook and YouTube would have never made any money. It is the same thing with the gambling being put into games, and the psychological urge is too well documented to be disputed. It is manipulative, it does work, and it's a fucking huge problem when the framework of games are designed to manipulate the behavior with a pretty coat of paint put on top. What we have now is nothing more than a slick looking slot machine with a bonus game given as well.

[Lahis]

[Lindestria]

Probably not the best start to say "Activision has filed..." when he explicitly says that they were granted the patent and filed 2 years prior. Altogether a rather underhanded approach, but not entirely unexpected. As long as the idea is more to sell cosmetics rather then straight up power boosts though, it's not as much of an issue. Or really even slight power boosts as long as that can be gained in game rather then through real currency.

At the very least this is a good showing for the watchdogs on the industry, always wary of possible ethical abuses on the consumer.

[Orby]

Guess in 1-2 years we will be required to buy loot boxes to finish the game.

Buy a £40 full price game with only the first level included, buy level 2 DLC for only £15 or buy loot boxes for a chance to find parts of the game inside. levels 3 - 10 coming soon.... :P

The future of gaming :P

[Lindestria]

Having just read through most of the actual patent; surprisingly not as much 'Apocalypse of modern multiplayer' as seemed to be implied. Pretty much every idea places player enjoyment and quality matches as the highest point with the system apparently being designed to look at everything from optimal compositions to desired role and skill level. The microtransaction encouragement is entirely down to implementation, since the term "Where the weapon is highly effective..." in one of the proposals could mean any range from a P2W example of the weapon simply winning you the match to more restrained concepts of not getting a map entirely made of tight corridors if you have just bought a long ranged weapon (As long as the matchmaking pushes for optimal compositions/parity on a per map basis which is in the patent a given players purchase wouldn't mean much to the overall fairness of the match)
Additionally of course the term used is "Game Related Purchases" which applies to "... a real currency fee, virtual currency fee, or other kind of fee' meaning this system could be used to entirely promote purchases through in-game currency as well as micro-transactions.

Hopefully developers under Activision will be able to implement these systems on a more fair level then the pure money based P2W fears the community rightfully has.

[Jastall]

Seriously.

Games in '99 didn't typically GET expansions. They got sequels. Outside of early MMOs, at least. Look at, say, Baldur's Gate. It got a sequel, no expansions. They either got a full additional sequel, or you got no new content whatsoever. Worse, this was before patches became a regular expectation, and a lot of games shipped with game-breaking issues that never got fixed.

The smaller DLCs in the 2010 era listed there should be additions TO that base package; the idea that you're magically entitled to that content for the base game price is just flat-out wrongheaded.

And the last one is the worst; the loot box phenomenon is better described as stickers you can slap on to bedazzle the complete picture that was the game you bought. If you prefer the game without the stickers/bedazzling, nothing makes you buy them.

The original Baldur's Gate did get an expansion, Tales of the Sword Coast. It just wasn't a very good one so it is often forgotten.

I do agree that the pic is exaggerated, but there's no denying that DLC and microtransactions have been home to scummy practices sometimes, such as the From Ashes DLC withholding an important party member from ME3 (that was in the game's files at launch no less) or the pay to win bullshit in Battlefront 2.

[Flaks]

The system is not at all for destiny as has already been clarified by Cozmo. It's for other activision games.

[Endus]

The original Baldur's Gate did get an expansion, Tales of the Sword Coast. It just wasn't a very good one so it is often forgotten.

I stand corrected. My overall point still stands; expansions weren't industry-standard in 1999.

I do agree that the pic is exaggerated, but there's no denying that DLC and microtransactions have been home to scummy practices sometimes, such as the From Ashes DLC withholding an important party member from ME3 (that was in the game's files at launch no less) or the pay to win bullshit in Battlefront 2.

I'm not gonna defend pay-to-win anything. If you can earn the same stuff, reasonably, in normal play, then it's not "pay to win", just "pay to go faster", which is okay, but if the best stuff is pay-only, that's shitty.

But the From Ashes DLC is actually one of my flashpoints in all this. Why the hell was that an issue? I heard all the arguments, and they were nonsense. "It's on the disc!" So? You didn't pay to access it. "It's available on Day 1!" And? It's extra bonus content. You didn't need it to play the game, and Javik, while cool, was utterly superfluous. He filled no hole in your party that others couldn't fill, he wasn't necessary for any mission (other than his personal ones, which was the DLC in question), etc.

I got ME3 at launch, including Javik, but I was just as baffled by all this back then. Here's a post from 2015 where I said the same stuff; http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...0#post32864410

Javik was like leather seats, for a new car. They're available on Day 1 that the vehicle launches. The basic car doesn't come with them. That isn't "unfair". And the car works fine with the baseline seats.

[Antiganon]

It's like none of the people bitching about this have actually read the article, they just don't like Destiny 2 and are looking for anything negative to validate their feelings.

PSA: it's OK not to like the game everyone likes. You don't need to use fake news to justify it.

- - - Updated - - -

That literally doesn't make it ANY better. Even if it won't get into destiny 2 ( which I'm sure it will later down the road) it doesn't change the fact that it's a scummy practise.

What's even dumber is that something like this can actually be patented. This is literally just a simple idea, nothing fancy about it.

It is scummy, no doubt about that.

As for the patent, I believe they patented the algorithm, not just the idea.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not gonna defend pay-to-win anything. If you can earn the same stuff, reasonably, in normal play, then it's not "pay to win", just "pay to go faster", which is okay, but if the best stuff is pay-only, that's shitty.

it's shitty either way, imagine in WoW buying a full heroic tier set the day the raid opens.

[Jastall]

I stand corrected. My overall point still stands; expansions weren't industry-standard in 1999.



I'm not gonna defend pay-to-win anything. If you can earn the same stuff, reasonably, in normal play, then it's not "pay to win", just "pay to go faster", which is okay, but if the best stuff is pay-only, that's shitty.

But the From Ashes DLC is actually one of my flashpoints in all this. Why the hell was that an issue? I heard all the arguments, and they were nonsense. "It's on the disc!" So? You didn't pay to access it. "It's available on Day 1!" And? It's extra bonus content. You didn't need it to play the game, and Javik, while cool, was utterly superfluous. He filled no hole in your party that others couldn't fill, he wasn't necessary for any mission (other than his personal ones, which was the DLC in question), etc.

I got ME3 at launch, including Javik, but I was just as baffled by all this back then. Here's a post from 2015 where I said the same stuff; http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...0#post32864410

Javik was like leather seats, for a new car. They're available on Day 1 that the vehicle launches. The basic car doesn't come with them. That isn't "unfair". And the car works fine with the baseline seats.

I think all content done before a full priced game is launched should come with the game. I know that sometimes a team can add in some minor stuff between the title being Gold and release (such as small cosmetic DLCs or texture improvements) so that's something else. But From Ashes was absolutely not developed post-launch or even post Gold, hell the files for Javik were unlockable with a simple mod and I played with him, you just couldn't access his mission and weapon that way.

That's just scummy. Javik was actually vital to the main plot originally, then he was slashed from the game and sold for 15$ so they rewrote the script. By far the most unique and interesting squadmate in ME3, completed before release, a live freaking Prothean which is a big deal in-universe, and he's cut to be sold separately to enhance the game's revenues. That's like slashing the Emperor from Witcher 3, Deathclaws from a Fallout game or Cartman from Fractured but Whole. They know these characters will be popular, it just reeks of holding them hostage to bait your pre-orders. Pre-order bonuses are fine when they're small things like weapons or new sprays or whatever, not important pieces of unique story content, even if they're not critical to the plot.

Something similar kicked up a riot when Creative Assembly/SEGA wanted to withhold the Warriors of Chaos race as pre-order bonus from Total War Warhammer, despite them being a very popular race and obviously finished for release. They ended up offering them as early adopter bonus if you buy within the first 10 days. To me that's acceptable since you now have ample time to read reviews and see videos of a game so you're not purchasing blindly. But sadly that did not set a standard.