EA Proposes Unfair Matchmaking To Raise 'Player Engagement' & Monetization.

[Drungan]

Well we all knows how *talks* about something like this goes .... some will say TOLD YOU ALL SO ! and some will defend it .... none will likely change there mind but if you have not seen about this and care about multiplayer games, it is a good idea to at least watch this and think about it, maybe you like it ...maybe not.




In short : to keep you *engaged* in a game EA looking into fixing matchmaking so you have higher or lower chance to win and potentially profit from it.

[kail]

I don't see anything wrong with trying to keep players engaged in their game. Isn't that every developers' goal when trying to create a successful game? Issue is simply the monetization that companies like EA will most likely try to exploit.

[Arrashi]

I don't see anything wrong with trying to keep players engaged in their game. Isn't that every developers' goal when trying to create a successful game? Issue is simply the monetization that companies like EA will most likely try to exploit.

And don't you think that idea of "competetive" games rigging themselves in order to grant you victory or defeat you at any cost is kinda...weird ? Counter productive ?

[Video Games]

I really wish any company that refers to their games as products would go out of business.

[lawow74]

One can argue that no one forces you to play video games no more than anyone forces you to gamble as excusing business practices that favor lower risk and higher profit, but past a certain point, chance leaves the room and things are simply rigged, either in the game itself, the environment, or both, to keep you there and insure you'll be milked of every possible cent with low to no loss on their end.

People will debate exactly where that point is, and IMO this sort of matchmaking smells a lot like rigging the odds. Sure, some people will still play (Hell, some people will probably jump at the chance to spend money and feel awesome cos they're owning other people left and right in a video game) but will that be enough to overcome the negative press and pushback from those who see a rigged system for what it is and avoid it like the plague? Only time will tell.

Given the recent fiascos surrounding lockboxes, though...my magic 8-Ball says 'Outcome not favorable.'

[Blade Wolf]

I really wish any company that refers to their games as products would go out of business.

Atleast publishers, i'd think we'd be much better off without them. (Fucking EA destroying Bullfrog)

[Video Games]

Atleast publishers, i'd think we'd be much better off without them. (Fucking EA destroying Bullfrog)

Fucking ea destroying visceral ahshsjwownekelwmsl

[Deleted]

Well we all knows how *talks* about something like this goes .... some will say TOLD YOU ALL SO ! and some will defend it .... none will likely change there mind but if you have not seen about this and care about multiplayer games, it is a good idea to at least watch this and think about it, maybe you like it ...maybe not.




In short : to keep you *engaged* in a game EA looking into fixing matchmaking so you have higher or lower chance to win and potentially profit from it.

Jim Sterling can fuck off along with EA.
I also distinctly remember making a thread about this months ago when the patent for this kind of matchmaking was filed.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Jim Sterling can fuck off along with EA.
I also distinctly remember making a thread about this months ago when the patent for this kind of matchmaking was filed.

Activision was doing that(Possibly in relation to Destiny) not EA.

[barackopala]

Jim Sterling can fuck off along with EA.
I also distinctly remember making a thread about this months ago when the patent for this kind of matchmaking was filed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC19cGJa-xw
A better fix for ya, i also cant stand Sterling.

[Deleted]

Activision was doing that(Possibly in relation to Destiny) not EA.

Ah yeah, that's what it was.

[Deleted]

I don't see anything wrong with trying to keep players engaged in their game. Isn't that every developers' goal when trying to create a successful game? Issue is simply the monetization that companies like EA will most likely try to exploit.

They aren't trying to keep players engaged per sé, that is just a neccesity in their actual goal, manipulating players into spending money on a game they have already paid for a number of times over.

To me, this practice is unethical and if big publishers can't show that they can police themselves (lol, what big corporate structure has ever done tbat) then lawmakers should not be afraid and make them.

[SirCowdog]

I don't see anything wrong with trying to keep players engaged in their game. Isn't that every developers' goal when trying to create a successful game? Issue is simply the monetization that companies like EA will most likely try to exploit.

The problem is that theses "games" are sacrificing actual gameplay quality for profit. They're banking(literally) on warping every aspect of the game to encourage higher profits instead of actually making a better, more enjoyable game.

[dope_danny]

I'm honestly surprised how many of the clickbait channels that ride the outrage economy are completely new to this. This in some variation has been the norm in some fashion for damn near every online game for at least 10 years. This is just a more extreme version.
Case in point Gears of War. The developers found people who lost their first match were more likely to never play online ever again and this meant good sales didn't mean good player retention. So they have a system in the sequels that ensure your first few matches make you a powerhouse doing more damage and taking less. As you start to get wins this tones down until you are at the baseline once it assumes you are in for the duration.

I'll shit on EA any day of the week but if people assume some variation of this isn't running in the background in things like Starcraft 2 or Overwatch then its time to break that illusion. Of course there are people that then begin to self doubt their own skills in competitive games and get old timey buttmad over the concept and the outrage cycle perpetuates itself but it is what it is, pay no attention to the script behind the curtain.

The days of a clear cut online experience died with bots and player made maps. You choose to play you choose to be a hamster in a maze you have no control of and no idea when the man outside the maze is tweaking the experiment.

[Tech614]

Atleast publishers, i'd think we'd be much better off without them. (Fucking EA destroying Bullfrog)

Every game has a publisher, you might want to refrain from grouping them all in the same basket with EA.

Anyways, love the outrage thread but this is pretty old news. This isn't the first time EA has mentioned this, and it won't be the last either.

[stellvia]

YongYea made a video on the same topic the other day. He goes into more gritty details of the topic without all the bluster of Jim if people wanted something explained a little more dryly:

[Elim Garak]

Wow that video is stupid

[kail]

And don't you think that idea of "competetive" games rigging themselves in order to grant you victory or defeat you at any cost is kinda...weird ? Counter productive ?

Paying for any advantage in a multiplayer game is wrong to me. Outside of that I don't see any difference between "dynamic difficulty" and current matchmaking systems. As the video mentioned earlier, don't see a problem with implementing such systems in single player games is all.

[Mic_128]

Fucking ea destroying visceral ahshsjwownekelwmsl

Fucking EA destroying Westwood Studios

[Edge-]

I'm honestly surprised how many of the clickbait channels that ride the outrage economy are completely new to this. This in some variation has been the norm in some fashion for damn near every online game for at least 10 years. This is just a more extreme version.
Case in point Gears of War. The developers found people who lost their first match were more likely to never play online ever again and this meant good sales didn't mean good player retention. So they have a system in the sequels that ensure your first few matches make you a powerhouse doing more damage and taking less. As you start to get wins this tones down until you are at the baseline once it assumes you are in for the duration.

I'll shit on EA any day of the week but if people assume some variation of this isn't running in the background in things like Starcraft 2 or Overwatch then its time to break that illusion. Of course there are people that then begin to self doubt their own skills in competitive games and get old timey buttmad over the concept and the outrage cycle perpetuates itself but it is what it is, pay no attention to the script behind the curtain.

The days of a clear cut online experience died with bots and player made maps. You choose to play you choose to be a hamster in a maze you have no control of and no idea when the man outside the maze is tweaking the experiment.

Pretty much this. EA hate is on its peak again, and justifiably so, but it's getting silly. Doubly so with everyone seeing everything monetization related as deeply insidious and evil, when most of the time it's not too bad. Yeah, Battlefront 2 shit the bed in a major way and Destiny 2 has issues (Eververse issues are overblown compared to the issues elsewhere in the game, but everyone focuses on Eververse).

And yeah, clickbait youtubers are pretty boring.