>"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. "
Thoughts?
Other urls found in this thread:
techraptor.net
arstechnica.com
techcrunch.com
nytimes.com
twitter.com
>restricted to one company
I actually like this idea, I'll know which company to avoid
we all know that patenting something definitely means it will be implemented
...
This doesn't mean it will be restricted to one company. It only means no other company can come up with such a system of their own accord. Activision's hope here isn't to be the only one on the market utilizing this system, but rather, they hope to sell it to other publishers, thus gaining even more profits from the companies willing to buy in as well. If Activision actually DOES implement this and sees further profits thanks to it, you can bet your ass other companies will be lining up to buy in as well.
i have more than two digits IQ to not fall on jewish tricks
For now it's just a patent but you can bet jour ass they'll implement this shit. Big companies are milking normies and for real video games you have to look elsewhere
You aren't seeing this as it is though.
There are variants of this in every game.
Also you're all acting like this is bad but i dont see what the problem is. Activision and the like stopped making video games a decade ago.
>sample size of only a thousand
I bet your confidence interval isn't even 95%
Exactly, no respectable person is playing shit like Overwatch or Star Craft II.
>update player profile to indicate non-purchase
>place non-paying scum in matches where they always have a distinct disadvantage
>make purchaseable sniper the most op fucking gun in the game like the peacekeeper in black ops 2
>realize players are refusing to fall for your bullshit
>forsake mmr to have showcase players that use your faggy op gun and shit on the people who buy the base game
>don't pay the marquee players to be advertizers
>instead, reward them with k/d
This seems a little scummy. Devs basically allowing smurfing to sell more op p2w guns.
What's next, preferred ping? Pay $7.99 a month to get a lower ping than everyone else who doesn't buy the preferred plan? Purchasable killstreaks, where you can, for 99 cents, buy an airstrike at any time? When are the dev-sponsored aimbots coming out?
sample size of a thousand on a board where 90% of the users have to get a new IP address every half hour
If they thought they could get away with selling it they would. The reason they don't already is they know players wouldn't stand for it. It all comes down to which strategy would earn them the most money. Right now more players = more money, but if the dynamic shifted into a few stupid players = more money than simply more players they would change their strategy in a heartbeat.
They don't consider the damage shit like this does to their long-term reputation because long-term reputation is hard to quantify and even harder to sell to board members. Capitalism ruined video games.
>what is licensing
>Update: Activision representatives speaking to Glixel have stated that the patent was created by an independent research & development team and that the technology is not in place in any of their games.
techraptor.net
For Honor was pay to win like this, it's why I gave up on the game, it didn't make me want to buy more lootboxes to keep up with the fags who did.
they could actually build in an unnoticable aimbot that only corrects your aim a few pixels to influence your gaming experience even more. make you a god in some matches and completely fuck you over in others to steer your purchase decisions. good idea user, I just emailed it to my uncle at Activision it will be in the next patent they are doing.
>Capitalism ruined video games.
but you contradicted yourself earlier in your post, where you said that they can get away with it because their consumers are retarded. Casuals ruined video games.
You know how long it took me to get my gods diamond in smite? Well, now it takes a day and a half with purchasable boosters, and casuals buy it, making the diamond status irrelevant, because you can have 15 kills and 20 assists on a diamond loading frame. I don't blame lowrez. They're money-grubbing cunts. I blame the faggots who refuse to do what everyone else does to reach a certain status, and the filthy socialist apologists who protect them and their ignorant ways.
Which is why they allowed you to play every mode without gear and nerfed gear into the ground in june.
just wait until they use this system together with AI and they will find a way to manipulate even the most stubborn people like you into buying ingame items. who knows maybe they will lure you in and give you a great winning streak for a few weeks and then they try to sell you shit.
Is this really something they need to patent? Seems like that's just a way to attract people's ire, since patent are public.
I don't care, I sold that shit less than a week after it came out and glad I did as it was worth jack shit not long after.
The beta was a lot of fun, and it didn't have any of that garbage. All this is going to do is kill games that would've had potential.
The patent is so they can sue people who try to implement that system.
I can't tell if you are joking about the aim assist already in the game.
>That infographic
The decision diamond is utterly fucked.
>If yes, put them in a favorable MP situation to get good with item at the detriment of another
>If no, mark them as a cheap-ass
It's not the potential for actual implementation. It's that if they patent such shit they're showing their intent.
They would never win that lawsuit and people would hate them for suing for such a stupid reason, so I doubt it.
Patents are deliberately written vague so that competitors can't get any information from them even though patents are supposed to be elucidated so you can actually receive a patent.
Yes they would, Apple does it and they have some thousands of patents they've NEVER implemented
>They would never win that lawsuit
Yes they would.
>people would hate them for suing for such a stupid reason
If having a shitty reputation actually affected their income it would have happened by now.
All the AAA studios seem to be laughably out of touch with their consumers, wouldn't surprise me at all if they somehow thought people would love this idea.
Which would Sup Forums rather have:
A) Communist bullshit matchmaking
>All players are arranged onto teams as balanced as possible so both sides have as close to 50% chance to win as possible every game. As a result, the best players wind up with worse allies than opponents. Once they reach the top, improving their score just gives them worse allies while facing the same opponents. No player has any incentive to improve, and the worst players are propped up by an equally strong welfare force
B) Ayn Rand's Matchmaking
>Players are randomly distributed across teams. On average, your allies are always as strong as your opponents, but the better player wins more often than the worse player, and sometimes games are imbalanced. Your success is in the end a function of your personal skill.
C) Enlightened Master Race Matchmaking
>Players are arranged onto team by an algorithm that attempts to minimize both imbalance and unfairness, weighting the permutations according to a value for each player that won't always produce perfectly even games and will still hold players back a bit for being better, but isn't the extreme of either
This is so bullshit, they'll make millions of such a generic and ancient practice used in games by lawsuits
That's a survey asking whether you want them to regulate loot boxes. I mean, they're here to stay so the only correct choice is to opt for them to be regulated so they don't go out of control
Just like cryptocurrencies.
They wouldn't though.
They would because other companies do. This isn't some exception.
D) Realistic Matchmaking
>Players are placed into matches randomly, resulting in the most chaotic and unfair system imaginable
>They would never win that lawsuit
fuckin expert in the house
B. Less luck involved after the initial queue.
That was option B)
>say carls jr, commercial lengthens.
E) Sup Forums Matchmaking
>Players are placed into matches/teams according to their ethnicity, religion and political views maximizing the hate one team has for the other. Therefore creating the most heated battles in online gaming.
No, other companies do not sue for patents on their marketing strategy.
>No, other companies do not sue for patents on their marketing strategy.
They do if they violate their patent. Tons of companies do this purposely as part of "protecting their ideas"
that would result in B), user
just there's no harm in choosing players in similar skill brackets to populate the game before assigning them into teams
I don't know where you think that some patent on a marketing idea doesn't count as a real patent and somehow you couldn't sue for it. Its 100% legal because its their idea, if someone else tries this activision has grounds to sue them if they find out.
F) Every time a group loads in, a monkey with a keyboard will mash various buttons until everyone is allocated.
F) Playground Matchmaking
>Players are placed into a pool at the beginning of a match. Two team leaders are selected based on their previous performance and these leaders take turns selecting team members. The players chosen first are given priority access to weapons and/or gear to give them an advantage, while players chosen last receive no benefits.
dota 2 already has that, its called language options
No, they do not, I've been waiting 3 posts for you to provide a single example instead of just saying I'm wrong.
I don't know where you learned about patent law, but it certainly wasn't in any law school I'd go to.
G) "Fair Playground"
>Players are pooled and the 2 best from their last matches are selected as Team Leaders who pick one person from the pool for their team back and forth until there are none left
>And then match starts and looting and shit is handled normally
>No, they do not, I've been waiting 3 posts for you to provide a single example instead of just saying I'm wrong.
arstechnica.com
Apple gets sued by a university because apple violated a patent belonging to the university.
techcrunch.com
Apple pays massive settlement for patent infringement
nytimes.com
Apple violates a patent by samsung over digital payment technology
It happens a fucking lot, stop being naive.
>we created it but we're not gonna use it
yeah, right
B
I'd rather get good to win more than get good to increase some shitty epeen number.
H) US Matchmaking
>Players get sorted into arbitrary groups based on their geolocation, they then vote for one of two team leaders that will represent their group. these representatives will then play the game while all other people can only watch as spectators.
...
How about option A) to make the rabble happy, but give players who win a lot and are being handicapped more free hats?
>what is licensing
They're going to sell this algorithm as dlc to other studios.
A thousand is a decent sample size. You get diminishing returns the bigger the sample size gets.
??? None of those are even remotely similar to the patent in the OP, I don't know if you're just trolling now.
I) Nazi Matchmaking
>Players are segregated into teams based on their physical characteristics
>The largest team is marked the Nazis and receive almost all the weapons and defensive boosts
>The rest are dumped into the Jews team and have a very limited weapon supply and must attempt to not die before the Match ends
While it'd be reviled as one of the most terrible, racist, awful matchmaking systems in history, it'd be kinda fun as a general game mode.
>They would never win that lawsuit and people would hate them for suing for such a stupid reason, so I doubt it.
You know how I can tell you're underage or a complete idiot? By reading this post
This is pretty much how most matchmaking is anyways.
The patent system is actually so unbelievably borked that companies hold whole stables of patents that they don't enforce just so that they can threaten to *counter*-sue other companies who hold patents *they* use if the other companies ever come at them.
It's like a corporate equivalent of open-carry. Everyone else will want to use it too if it works.
I'd honestly like to see hundreds of game stats and variables listed and allow individual games to determine their own custom matchmaking or team building algorithms on the fly. It could allow for interesting or creative ways to play an otherwise straightforward game.
Say for instance in a shooting game that has occasional melee weapons it could be announced or voted on that the next game will give remarkable advantages to the players who get a lot of melee kills. Immediately everyone's play style and strategies change to reflect this. Or maybe give a serious disadvantage in the next game to anyone with a higher than 2.0 K/D ratio. You might see the best player in the game suddenly acting like an idiot in front of you trying to get killed, or he might decide to push through the disadvantage for fun.
When you give players more options they can find all sorts of ways to make something creative. Not saying all ideas are going to be perfect or that everyone's going to like them, but if enough people do then they'll have a place carved out for them and they'll enjoy the game more.
so basically a more elaborate version of the fatboy mutator, aimed at encouraging players to switch up game mechanics instead of being a simple statistical nerf?
I kind of like it
Guys I'm not gonna lie.
I went to Reddit to see what they though about this sort of thing, loot boxes,this and EA.
I'm not even joking they are in full shill mode for it. They have these top comments that get Gold Stars shilling for EA and lootboxes and these kind of things.
it makes me fucking sick.
Thanks for your constructive comment.
The patent is as vague as it can possibly get, but it's literally saying it is going to match 'marquee' players, that is players marked as fucking cash cows, with 'juniors' or people new to the game in order to influence purchases.
And if you purchase something, they will break the matchmaking rules and put you in a match where you will absolutely wreck shit, in order to make you think it's a good purchase so you buy more shit in the future.
As well as also influencing matchmaking based on your purchases, which would also imply influencing it based on non-purchases.
I wasn't buying anything Activision related before, but I'm definitely steering clear of them and anything even slightly related to them now.
Feel bad for anyone buying into Destiny 2 because that's definitely going to be where they start this shit.
looks like damage control to me
It doesn't matter dude, a patent is a patent whether the thing patented is real or not
>DOTA
>PUBG
>Overwatch
Rather have B honestly.
To be fair they could just license it out to the companies who wanna pay and never implment it themselves.
>its literally nothing
This is almost as retarded as getting mad at bethesda for the mod store. Nothing is taken away. Nothing is changed. If this makes you angry you are literally shitting on yourself and calling yourself an uncontrollable retard who can't make his own decisions.
you can get patents for glorified flowcharts? I think I found myself a career.
you can get patents for ideas even if they NEVER come to fruition
...
All the NEETs of Sup Forums should think up similar ideas by the dozens and patent troll the shit out of AAA companies.
B except matchmaking is divided into 3 tiers - bronze/silver/gold and players, not the matchmaking system, choose which of the 3 tiers they get 100% random matchmaking in
Here's how I predict it'll work:
tryhards, shitters who think they're good, cheaters, and teamstacks pick bronze to pubstomp
casuals or tryhards without their teamstack pick silver for casual gameplay
tryhards, shitters who think they're good, cheaters, and teamstacks pick gold for competitive play
>cryptocurrencies need to be regulated
The entire point of crpytocurrencies is that they are unregulated and decentralized. They have nothing in common with loot boxes and your comparison is the stupidest thing I have read all day.
It does matter, stupid patents get granted all the time, if they actually sued somebody for it, the company being sued could easily say that the patent was stupid in the first place and shouldn't have been granted, which is clearly the case here, this patent is like saying you can patent the concept of ads. Or they could just, not have one of the step in the original patent, and they're in the clear. Activision would never win.