Overclock.net banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

[IGN] Activision files patent for microtransaction-minded matchmaking system

5K views 99 replies 61 participants last post by  cekim 
#1 ·
Quote:
Activision has filed a patent for a microtransaction-driven system for matchmaking in multiplayer games.

As reported by Glixel, the patent was filed in back in 2015, and was officially granted to the publisher by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office today, October 17.

Described as "a system and method [...] that drives microtransactions in multiplayer video games," the patent outlines a system in which players are matched together in such a way that it encourages the purchase of in-game content.

For example, "the system 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," as the newer player may wish to emulate the veteran player by purchasing the same weapons, gear, etc. they have acquired.

The system can also match players to encourage microtransactions in other ways, including dropping a player into a match where a specific in-game purchase proves to be especially useful, as "doing so may enhance a level of enjoyment by the player for the game-related purchase, which may encourage future purchases."
source

OMG
 
#3 ·
Vote with your cash people.
 
#4 ·
So does this mean that other companies can't do that?
 
#6 ·
Its a cop out, but I'm glad I have enough going on in my life at this point that I can confidently say I will not even consider purchasing a game made like that. I really hope everyone else feels the same way, but there is a reason they patented this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hleV View Post

So does this mean that other companies can't do that?
It means other companies can't do what is stated in the patent, depending on how broad it is written. I would be surprised if this prevented other companies from implementing similar methods.

The patent is long and detailed if you choose to bore yourself by reading it:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/9789406

There is an awful lot about matchmaking in there.
 
#7 ·
Is activision the umbrella company? From a gamer and consumer perspective this disgusting.
 
#8 ·
It's more fun to win with handicaps, anyway!
 
#12 ·
Consumers, especially the market that encompasses video game consumers, will let this happen & it'll only get worse from here.

Maybe it's the pessimist in me, but I really can't care about AAA trash anymore. They're not video games made to be fun, they're video games created to generate greenbacks, with development direction driven by suits who likely have no interest in VGs themselves - you simply can not create truly good video games like this.

but at least the AA/Indie game scene is going strong.. so that's something
thumb.gif
 
#13 ·
I would rather spend 80-90 bucks upfront for a good AAA game and avoid any kind of microtransactions besides cosmetic.

I wonder though. Imagine Battlefield 1 is sold at 60 bucks but all the future dlcs will be free. Would they still make a profit?

Edit:

Also in the past microtransactions were usually for multiplayer. After hearing about the new Shadow of War game and it's microtransactions, I am loosing faith really fast.
 
#15 ·
Quote:
For example, "the system 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," as the newer player may wish to emulate the veteran player by purchasing the same weapons, gear, etc. they have acquired.
Quote:
The system can also match players to encourage microtransactions in other ways, including dropping a player into a match where a specific in-game purchase proves to be especially useful, as "doing so may enhance a level of enjoyment by the player for the game-related purchase, which may encourage future purchases."
The first quote doesn't bother me at all, this is done in society every day (more or less ads). The second quote however implies possible P2P advantages. (such weapon variant supply drops in Infinite Warfare)
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by iARDAs View Post

I would rather spend 80-90 bucks upfront for a good AAA game and avoid any kind of microtransactions besides cosmetic.

I wonder though. Imagine Battlefield 1 is sold at 60 bucks but all the future dlcs will be free. Would they still make a profit?

Edit:

Also in the past microtransactions were usually for multiplayer. After hearing about the new Shadow of War game and it's microtransactions, I am loosing faith really fast.
Yes they would still make a profit, just not as much. I am fine with micro transactions as long as 2 things apply:

1.) They don't imbalance the game
2.) They don't split the player base

I don't mind the cosmetic micro transactions, nor do i really mind game progress micro transactions as long as a non-payer can still earn the same progress.

EA seems to actually be trying a model that doesn't completely wreck their player base with the new BF2. As long as it is a half decent game at its core, I hope it is successful just to show EA that they made the right choice to make DLC free and limit micro transactions to non game breaking territory.
 
#17 ·
Maybe its a blessing in disguise?
rolleyes.gif
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultracarpet View Post

Yes they would still make a profit, just not as much. I am fine with micro transactions as long as 2 things apply:

1.) They don't imbalance the game
2.) They don't split the player base

I don't mind the cosmetic micro transactions, nor do i really mind game progress micro transactions as long as a non-payer can still earn the same progress.

EA seems to actually be trying a model that doesn't completely wreck their player base with the new BF2. As long as it is a half decent game at its core, I hope it is successful just to show EA that they made the right choice to make DLC free and limit micro transactions to non game breaking territory.
I agree with this sentiment.
thumb.gif
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newbie2009 View Post

Vote with your cash people.
They have been. Why else do you think microtransactions are being expanded?
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: Blameless
#20 ·
Kind of annoying to think about the cost of developing and maintaining the microtransaction system though. Thats direct developer hours and planning being sunk solely into a microtransaction ecosystem instead of polishing the game. At that point, the real system is the monetary one, and the game is just built to keep you engaged in the system.

Marketing platforms - a solid argument for books
ninja.gif
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by starliner View Post

Wait, are we talking about drugs or games? I can't tell the difference
confused.gif
We're talking about desire. Drugs, digital hats, whatever it is - they just want your money and for you to keep mashing the pleasure button. This isn't just related to games, almost every business in the world wants to treat you like this. We'd all be well served by a heavy dose of buddhist-level detachment from much of this stuff.

Last part purely opinion of course.
 
#23 ·
This a plot to find and destroy all the stupid people in the world. If you buy the in game content they send a DOL(detonate on LAN) signal to your computer.
 
#24 ·
Remember that slippery slope that was talked about regarding micro-transactions?

We just collectively got shoved off the end of that cliff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top