Slashdot Mirror
Activision Patents Pay-To-Win Matchmaker (rollingstone.com)
New submitter EndlessNameless writes: If you like fair play, you might not like future Activision games. They will cross the line to encourage microtransactions, specifically matching players to both encourage and reward purchase. Rewarding the purchase, in particular, is an explicit and egregious elimination of any claim to fair play. "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," according to the patent. "This may encourage the player to make future purchases to achieve similar gameplay results." Even though the patent's examples are all for a first-person-shooter game, the system could be used across a wide variety of titles. "This was an exploratory patent filed in 2015 by an R&D team working independently from our game studios," an Activision spokesperson tells Rolling Stone. "It has not been implemented in-game." Bungie also confirmed that the technology isn't being used in games currently on the market, mentioning specifically Destiny 2.
Before Apple had IAP, you paid a few dollars for a game, and got a decent amount of levels. Often, there was a sequel, so you spend $3.99 or so, bought that.
Then came IAP. Games which were challenging but fun became a lot harder, in order to force people to buy powerups to beat the game, or the game would have a delay if you lost... of course, you could pay something to have the delay removed. Additional levels? More dosh. Even a basic tower defense game became so loaded with costly powerups that the whole genre wound up collapsing.
If I want Farmville, I'll play Farmville. The whole gaming genre has been so polluted by this P2W crap that it just isn't worth the time, and since older games that have not been recompiled for 64 bit which haven't been updated are wiped off Apple's App Store, what is worth playing is pretty hard to find.
It is said that when there are cheaters in a game, nobody wins. When the PROVIDER is cheating, that goes double. But as Cory Doctorow has pointed out, if you can't check the source code, how do you know for certain?
Computers can match things, Duh!!, so putting in a game, for a preference makes it special.
When are these losers going to accept the fact that software algorithms are copyright-able but not patent-able!
I.e. the Dunning-Kruger sufferers of players, that are pretty bad by do not know that. Well, I predict they will make great business with that model, but quite a few players will find themselves disgusted and repulsed by these games. I certainly will very carefully check before I ever buy anything from the again.
Incidentally, why can you patent such stuff? this is both trivial and highly immoral. Both should make this completely non-patentable.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Interestingly While Wargaming.net has this system. They have spent the last couple years trying to get rid of it or minimize it's effects. It warped matchmaking pretty strongly and negatively. They no longer introduce new vehicles with "Premium" matchmaking. In fact, they are actively working to slowly remove the existing "premium" matchmaking vehicles from the game. Mostly by attrition and changes to the overall game system that makes them unattractive to play.
I once got in to Hearthstone briefly. This was the first time I have ever tried a card game or anything like that. Let me also say that I have been in to game theory since the 70's, probably before the Hearthstone's developer's parents were even born.
I first learned how the game worked. I was able to climb to the top rankings even then. I then developed a set of Lua scripts that calculated the best plays based on the game at hand. Well, in short, I got banned. Not because they thought I was using a bot or cheating (and I wasn't, I was just playing as a regular human-controlled, me), but because I won too often even against people that payed lots of money for superior stacks that should have wiped me off the floor.
Oh... OK. Fuck you too, morons.
Current research says you are full of it, i.e. nothing of what you say is actual fact. Please go away ans top spreading lies.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
This is false. The best maps are balanced, such that every weapon has the potential to be well used, if the player is skillful, and wasted if the player is not. That's not what this is about though. This is like allowing a player to buy a nuke, and be matched into a game where everyone else is trapped in a stadium with only knifes and police batons.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
Hear me out on this. The practice described in the patent is total garbage and a very bad thing. However, the patent itself is excellent. If Activision owns the patent on this, then other game makers would have to pay to do the same thing, thus making them less likely to do it, thus making it less likely for us to see the practice used in actual games.
I would patent that idea Sam I Am!
I would patent it electronically.
I would patent it with a computer.
I would patent it online.
I would patent it every time!
I would patent it with nanobots.
I would patent it as a drug.
I would patent it as a business process.
I would patent it in an office!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Balance is essential in a fun game. New players should have time to get up to speed, but otherwise everyone is on a level playing field. The only distinguishing thing being the player's skill, reflexes, strategy or whatever skill the game demands.
I have faced a similar 'unfair' situation three times among chess players. Nobody literally paid for an advantage, but they did it indirectly.
Each time, a group of ordinary people discovered that we all knew how to play chess. Each time, none of us were expert. Each time we had a very enjoyable time exploring this game as a learning experience. Each time, people outside our group joined in, creating a group of 30-90 people. And each time it became competitive, and the fun slid out under the door.
Certain players, maybe 10%, began studying. Within two months substantial libraries were being accumulated. Money was wagered. Friends became enemies. A few players went on to become serious but the vast majority lost interest and left the group. What could have been fun for all was compromised by those seeking an (unfair?) advantage.
There are also people who study to excel in Scrabble and spelling bees, etc. Let them compete against other anal retentive types and leave the fun contests to regular people.
...omphaloskepsis often...
You're trolling too hard.
And you need to learn not to bite. The troll got modded into oblivion, but his efforts remain because you bit back.
Internet 101: Don't feed the trolls.