Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

https://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/news/how-activision-uses-matchmaking-tricks-to-sell-in-game-items-w509288

The patent details how multiplayer matches are configured, specifically how players are selected to play with one another. That process used by Activision involves a computer looking at a wide variety of factors including skill level, Internet latency, availability of friends and other things. It then goes through a system to first soft-reserve a slot in a game for a player and then assign the players to the same match.

This patent, though, specifically discusses how that system for pairing up players can also be used to entice a player to purchase in-game items.

"For example, in one implementation, the system may include a microtransaction engine that arranges matches to influence game-related purchases," according to the patent. "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."

***

"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)," according to the patent. "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. "

The system can also drop players into matches that will make use of an in-game-related purchase, according to the patent.

"Doing so may enhance a level of enjoyment by the player for the game-related purchase, which may encourage future purchases," according to the patent. "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."

I mean anyone with even a shred of sense saw this kind of garbage coming a mile off, some of us saw it coming way back when F2P first became a thing(and were heavily shouted-down at the time as Chicken Littles), but seeing it written out in cold, predatory, bloodless corporate legalese really drives it home eh. Every time microtransaction systems got incrementally worse, incrementally more exploitative, incrementally less consumer-friendly there have been folk there to defend the practice, whether out of slavish fandom to whichever company was presently doling out the biggest lump of gak or just plain refusal to see where things were heading, and now here we are, we've arrived, a major publisher is patenting using multiplayer matchmaking to manipulate players not just into making microtransaction purchases but also to artificially reinforce the value of those purchases after the fact, and all at the expense of the ordinary mooks who thought they were buying a functional game rather than a crudely-wrapped system of psychological manipulation.

I mean this would be bad enough if it were "only" in F2P games, but that ship sailed so long ago that its fossilised wreck was recently excavated from the seabed, this garbage is fully intended for use in full-price games.

Yes, you could see this coming from a mile away, which is why I've stayed out of free to play games and never buy into microtransactions. I may buy an expansion for a game I like, but only if I feel it's justified as a full expansion.

I really don't get why people buy into this.

 Cream Tea wrote:
Yes, you could see this coming from a mile away, which is why I've stayed out of free to play games and never buy into microtransactions. I may buy an expansion for a game I like, but only if I feel it's justified as a full expansion.

I really don't get why people buy into this.

But really you kinda did - even if you didn't buy microtransactions, you bought games that included them(as did we all), and as far as the publisher was concerned that was an endorsement. Now that MTs in standard paid games are the norm, now that people accept they'll be there even if they personally refuse to buy them, the stage is set for exactly this kind of maneuver; skewed matchmaking, deliberately altered difficulty curves, games that drown you in meaningless busywork to drive character progression to get to the fun bits then offer "shortcuts" for real money so you can skip the engineered-dullness, that's where we are now because the publishers know that once they get you in the door with the right IP they can work on you as you play and they accept the reality that most gamers still deny: nobody is immune to psychological manipulation if it's done well.

Entirely not surprised.

Meh. Whatever.

I have mostly turned away from multiplayer because the grindy nature that came with MT and 'progression' really became mindbogglingly boring. Having to invest hundreds of hours in a game you already spend money on just to unlock some things for multiplayer that is gated off for no reason other than MT is the absolute worst. One way or the other this won't really influence me that much for now, although the invasion of single-player MT is steadily marching onward. I'm avoiding games with MT as far as possible, if there is one I would really like I wait for a massive discount.

CoD and the different Battlefield series (Battlefront 2 lootbox shenanigans) have really pushed the grindy nature of MP progression. Can't say I'm surprised this system would show up eventually. Only thing that was left was to guess if it would be Ubisoft, EA or Blizzard-Activision.

Edit: The Jimquisition has done a few videos lately on the exploitative nature of MT and loot boxes to prey on those susceptible to that type of gambling.

I've long suspected that matchmakers in some games are actually programmed to balance out your win rate not based on your skill but on trying to ensure you never lose enough matches that you rage quit. I suspect this because sometimes when I'm playing a game the matches it throws together are jarringly one sided, either on way or the other, and I question if the matchmaker is actually trying to balance the players or just hand out wins at a certain rate.

Eh, I haven't seriously played a competitive game since... wow, Counter Strike Source.

I'll dabble for fun in things like Battlefront, but I couldn't care less if someone has a cool gun I don't have. Chances of running across them multiple times is pretty low. Other than that I go for cooperative rather than competitive games.

 LordofHats wrote:
I've long suspected that matchmakers in some games are actually programmed to balance out your win rate not based on your skill but on trying to ensure you never lose enough matches that you rage quit. I suspect this because sometimes when I'm playing a game the matches it throws together are jarringly one sided, either on way or the other, and I question if the matchmaker is actually trying to balance the players or just hand out wins at a certain rate.

I don't think skill has any part in most matchmaking, besides the fact that if it does party matchmaking and carrying skews proper 'skill' level. If you really get placed on skill level, why do you get placed with people who don't even know what end of a weapon to point at the enemy? Or the guy that seems to enjoy reenacting Leroy Jenkins? Or even the guy on your team that seems to play on an entirely different level he's so good. I'm guessing it has a lot more to do with dedicated servers, which are expensive, most games just letting players host and throw in those relatively close ping wise.

 -Loki- wrote:
Eh, I haven't seriously played a competitive game since... wow, Counter Strike Source.

I'll dabble for fun in things like Battlefront, but I couldn't care less if someone has a cool gun I don't have. Chances of running across them multiple times is pretty low. Other than that I go for cooperative rather than competitive games.

But that's the thing though, we're getting into "you're not the customer, you're the product" territory with that guff above - if you're not the one being manipulated, you're used as fodder for those that are. If they're trying to entice a new player to fork over for top-tier sniping gear by pairing them up with someone who already has that gear, they'll want to ensure that the guy with the gear puts on a good show, and since they're already manipulating the matchmaking why not take that one extra step and ensure that your algorithm stuffs the opposing team with chumps like you or I who don't have the Awesomeblaster of Godmode +5 and a full set of top-tier enhancement cards/mods/whatever? The same holds true when they want to ensure someone who has bought an item receives enough positive reinforcement that they're likely to keep buying more things - if they want their system of placing them in a situation where their purchase gives them a meaningful advantage(say, a Super Duper Shotgun in a CQC map) to actually have any impact, the only way to do that is to ensure that the opposing players matched against the "mark" either don't have the appropriate gear for the circumstances or have objectively inferior versions of the "right" gear.

And you wouldn't be able to "dabble" in something like Battlefront and expect to have fun if a system like this is in effect, given the massive disparity their microtransaction system introduces. Abilities that jump from a modest DR to total invulnerability; abilities that combine one-shot-kill weapons with significant health restoration every time you make a kill, combos of RoF increases with damage buffs and cooldown reductions that result in you dealing literally twice as much damage in any given scenario as someone with the basic versions of the same cards let alone someone without those cards at all, and on top of it all tying the number of cards you're allowed to equip to a progression system that only advances you in rank based on the amount of cards you own. All that garbage is bad enough to make Battlefront 2 look like a trashfire for online play, but imagine how much worse it would suck if a system like this were in operation repeatedly picking out "Minnows" who don't spend money to serve as target-practice in a process designed to create new "Whales".

 Cream Tea wrote:
Yes, you could see this coming from a mile away, which is why I've stayed out of free to play games and never buy into microtransactions.

But the publishers have seen around that. Now they slow progress even in single-player games, progress that can be sped up for just a little bit of money... and then maybe a little bit more...

Two things to always remember about microtransactions:

1. If the publisher didn't want you to buy them, or thinks you can get by without them, then why would they be in the game?
2. If the publisher outright says that they're there to help you 'speed up' the game, then they're basically saying that they've padded out their game for that express reason and/or that their game isn't worth playing.

I try to stay away from games that feature microtransactions that have influence on the game.
Differents skins or other visual stuff? I don't care.
Microtransactions to help boost your power ingame? feth off.

I can understand that free games include microtransactions, because they need to get money from somewhere, but if I'm paying for the game in the first place, it should not include microtransactions.

 Hanskrampf wrote:
I try to stay away from games that feature microtransactions that have influence on the game.
Differents skins or other visual stuff? I don't care.
Microtransactions to help boost your power ingame? feth off.

I can understand that free games include microtransactions, because they need to get money from somewhere, but if I'm paying for the game in the first place, it should not include microtransactions.

That's a big problem though. Leaving aside the argument over whether or not cosmetic items constitute part of the "experience" or not, the fact that so many of us(and again, I include myself in these remarks, I'm not attacking people just pointing out how we got where we are) were willing to overlook cosmetic microtransactions is probably the biggest reason the presence of microtransactions in paid-for games has become normalised. The industry have been slowly boiling our collective frog for years, and there's now a whole generation of young gamers who're entirely comfortable with the idea of paying for content via randomised gambleboxes. A handful might balk at the transition to literal "pay to win" systems, but not enough to make any kind of difference to the bottom line. And that generation are joined by a significant percentage of gamers from prior generations who'll overlook the inclusion of MTs for games they really want to play, or who've dived so deep into self-deception and fallacious sunk-cost logic that they actually buy-in to the publishers' garbage about "needing" to add MT monetisation on top of the base price and the multiple super-duper gold-editions and the DLC and the season passes.

In the end, we need to acknowledge one simple thing - if we actually want publishers to hear us when we say "feth off" to MTs and systems like the one above(and make no mistake, there will be more, and similar shenanigans that distort the experience in single-player games either already exists or very soon will), the only way that happens is if we stop buying games with MTs in. Any MTs, of any kind.

I'm a huge Star Wars fan, for all its flaws I enjoyed the first reboot Battlefront, and I was very much looking forward to the new one, but for me this is my angry Picard speech moment; this far, no further. I won't be buying Battlefront 2, not now, not when it goes on sale, not even to "just play the single player", because regardless of how much I might be thinking "feth you EA" they will choose to interpret any kind of participation in that product on my part as an endorsement of their whole P2W gamblebox economy. I'm not delusional, I don't harbour any belief my choosing not to buy this game or indeed any game from now on that includes MTs of any form while also expecting me to buy the product("P2PM" - pay-to-pay more) will actually have any impact, but at least I won't feel complicit in this cynical exploitative garbage any more.

As soon as games stopped being games and started being platforms for future sales*, we lost.


*See the closing of Visceral games for EA's pathetic explanation of why a focused, linear, narrative driven Star Wars game will now be "an experience that players will want to come back to and enjoy for a long time to come" as the latest example.

Got in at the 'soft end' of Microtransactions, via FV browser based games.

Soon clocked that every now and again it'd guv'nor you, by arranging levels you simply cannot complete, gobbling up your lives. You can continue, but at a price....

Freeblade? I'd say it's not guilty. Yes, there are micro-transactions, but I maxed out in reasonable play time without them, and I don't recall any missions feeling impossible by the time I got to them. Hard, yes. But not bent.

Cry boswellox and let slip the Sterdust

And that he did:

Let's all pretend that this is so they can deny a licence to everyone else so no-one can do this, right?


Right...?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Let's all pretend that this is so they can deny a licence to everyone else so no-one can do this, right?


Right...?

I'll try to imagine that, well least till EA/Ubi etc offer to lease/rent the code so everyone can enjoy getting in on the funs

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Cream Tea wrote:
Yes, you could see this coming from a mile away, which is why I've stayed out of free to play games and never buy into microtransactions.

But the publishers have seen around that. Now they slow progress even in single-player games, progress that can be sped up for just a little bit of money... and then maybe a little bit more...

Again, whatever. I haven't played any 'slow progress' games in the last twenty years (mostly it's race through far too little content), but if the game is designed to be slow to encourage players to buy... whatever... to, well, Not Play the Game, it clearly isn't anything I'd be interested in playing in the first place. If the gameplay is gak that makes me want to skip it? Yeah, no. There just isn't any conceivable scenario where a game could convince me to pay to skip the entire point of the game (which is the gameplay, for those not following along at home).

While not related to the patent, Activision is up to no general good yet again:

 BrookM wrote:
While not related to the patent, Activision is up to no general good yet again:

I watched a similar video when this was discovered and laughed my ass off.

Anyone who believes that Activision won't wait thirty seconds before building the 'microtransactions affect your matchmaking' model into a game is being very silly. Activision doesn't give a gak about you or the gaming community other than how much money they can milk from it. It's a company, designed to make money, it's not a philanthropic organization, not a volunteer-weekend-help-the-poor-gamer foundation - it's a company that needs money to live.

Also, the only people that are to blame for how this turned out is us, the gamers. We buy their unfinished 'AAA' titles, play their watered-down multiplayer, and suckle at the lootbox teat - and the obvious 'ITS *INSERT GAME DEV/PRODUCER HERE*'S FAULT' has become just as cliche as gamers blaming lag for sucking at a game.

 Yodhrin wrote:
"feth you EA"

Basically, this was all you needed to say. All the big companies are trying to screw each other over in their attempts to screw us over? I'm shocked.

Also funny that the filters were removed when i quoted you.

My only surprise is that this needed to be patented. I thought it was so painfully obvious and figured game companies already tried their best to mix online players in a way that encouraged people to buy more.

I generally avoid games with microtransactions in the first place. War Thunder is probably the only one I really played much.