I play video games every week and i have NEVER experienced a loot box.
They are not 'everywhere' its just people have been programmed to think only AAA games are games
Good for you... Entirely irrelevant to what i said... But good for you. Especially as i can show you thousands of games that are designed THE... EXACT... OPPOSITE... Then i could go on to show you the other parts of of society where things slowly but surely becomes not about the customer but how much can be squeezed out of said customer... And it is sad to see where and why the advances are made.
But yes... Small and medium sized indie developers do live on their players good will and can not afford to chance it. But once they make it big they tend to go another round and add just that... Hi pubg and Angry Birds...
no its very relevant.
here is what I see and I see it all the time and I have to combat it alll the time.
The games I play are NOT considered part of the 'games' when people use the term 'games' and frankly it pisses me off.
people talk about 'games' they almost always never refer to the games I am refering to as a bucket of 'games' more over what people complain about when they talk about 'games' dont exist in the 'games' I play and yet they want to be combative, arguementive, manpulative and dismissive about the option that the are ASKING FOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
at min please at least as a bare min understand that when you use the term 'games these days' there are games that you are explictly leaving out of your rant. its frankly offensive. they ARE games
3 million people bought 7 days to die ALONE, with a player base of around 3000 people each night. we exist, we are real, we are gamers....fuck me!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I hope EA gets their patent, that way no other game studios will ever be allowed to duplicate it.
That's not how patents work. They work like this: I patent something everyone "needs" and then charge them out the ass for it, or not let them use it because I can make more money otherwise. It's a A/B gate with the most money being the key that opens which direction to take.
Activision also had a similar patent before this whole Battlefield 2 soap opera. People ooh and pooed for a day and then BF2 came along to steal the spotlight.
I'm fairly certain both have been implementing these things for years. If they have a patent then they've already tested it. It's much harder to get a patent for a proof of concept without working implementation than it is with one. The big news is that Activision gets to own the rights to the process and charge everyone else to do it. The end result will be more money for Activision and possibly more expensive gaming.
Ahh good insight. That outcome certainly is not ideal then.
here is what I see and I see it all the time and I have to combat it alll the time.
The games I play are NOT considered part of the 'games' when people use the term 'games' and frankly it pisses me off.
people talk about 'games' they almost always never refer to the games I am refering to as a bucket of 'games' more over what people complain about when they talk about 'games' dont exist in the 'games' I play and yet they want to be combative, arguementive, manpulative and dismissive about the option that the are ASKING FOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
at min please at least as a bare min understand that when you use the term 'games these days' there are games that you are explictly leaving out of your rant. its frankly offensive. they ARE games
3 million people bought 7 days to die ALONE, with a player base of around 3000 people each night. we exist, we are real, we are gamers....fuck me!
Never said you where not a gamer.. Just that as you state... The subset of games you play are usually small.. indie developed and aimed at a niche market with a budget that would not cover the friday donughts on the offices of EA and Ubisoft.
A: They can afford to not do it B: They usually have some pressure on them to not do it C: They have a marketing incentive to not do it In the current climate it would be suicidal to add it.
So... answer me again how your games are relevant to the problem at large of Big Name Developers shitting the bed so bad not only the linen and mattress is a write-off but the bed it self.
here is what I see and I see it all the time and I have to combat it alll the time.
The games I play are NOT considered part of the 'games' when people use the term 'games' and frankly it pisses me off.
people talk about 'games' they almost always never refer to the games I am refering to as a bucket of 'games' more over what people complain about when they talk about 'games' dont exist in the 'games' I play and yet they want to be combative, arguementive, manpulative and dismissive about the option that the are ASKING FOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
at min please at least as a bare min understand that when you use the term 'games these days' there are games that you are explictly leaving out of your rant. its frankly offensive. they ARE games
3 million people bought 7 days to die ALONE, with a player base of around 3000 people each night. we exist, we are real, we are gamers....fuck me!
Never said you where not a gamer......
I didnt say you did
when one uses the term 'games these days' and variables of that phrase keep in mind that there are games you are NOT including in that term and its offensive.
it happens all the time, now regarding being combative, dismissing and arguementive about revealing games that do not have loot boxes please check yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! complaining about lootboxes being in(all) games and then being arguementive to someone who has a list of games that dont have it! and then just assuming without even looking into it that you would not like said games is...fucked up
I deal with this all the time, multiple forums every day. people are dismissive about these games even EXISTING...let alone their high sales for being non-games it appears.
I never see loot boxes in the games I play
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The inevitable march towards more and more aggressive and deceptive monetization practices isn't surprising anymore.
well at least in one area of gaming anyway
Nah it is pretty much everywhere... and not just in gaming...
I play video games every week and i have NEVER experienced a loot box.
They are not 'everywhere' its just people have been programmed to think only AAA games are games
There is an old saying...
Never say Never
no I am expressing the past.
I have in fact, never experience a loot box, others have. interesting that the course of action is to be combative about the options
And what I'm am saying is I wouldn't be surprised if one day in the not too distant future that one or more of your favorite Indy games starts to implement loot boxes.
The inevitable march towards more and more aggressive and deceptive monetization practices isn't surprising anymore.
well at least in one area of gaming anyway
Nah it is pretty much everywhere... and not just in gaming...
I play video games every week and i have NEVER experienced a loot box.
They are not 'everywhere' its just people have been programmed to think only AAA games are games
There is an old saying...
Never say Never
no I am expressing the past.
I have in fact, never experience a loot box, others have. interesting that the course of action is to be combative about the options
And what I'm am saying is I wouldn't be surprised if one day in the not too distant future that one or more of your favorite Indy games starts to implement loot boxes.
so break down the three options.
1. play a game with lootboxes 2. play a game without lootboxes 3. dont play a game without lootboxes nor look into which ones dont and complain that they might in the future have them and ignore and be combativity with the statement 'games i play do not have lootboxes'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The big boys playing head games with each other,great way to make better video games.
You can see they care more about business and money than they do about quality games.
They are all out to secure POWER,a foothold in the gaming territory,nothing ever looks like it is there to make it better for the gamer,usually new ways to exploit gamer's.
Activision...EA,,you can both kiss my ask.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The patent system has become a joke, the examiners are too busy to do searches for prior art. At least half the patents out there are invalid just for that reason.
The inevitable march towards more and more aggressive and deceptive monetization practices isn't surprising anymore.
well at least in one area of gaming anyway
Nah it is pretty much everywhere... and not just in gaming...
I play video games every week and i have NEVER experienced a loot box.
They are not 'everywhere' its just people have been programmed to think only AAA games are games
There is an old saying...
Never say Never
no I am expressing the past.
I have in fact, never experience a loot box, others have. interesting that the course of action is to be combative about the options
And what I'm am saying is I wouldn't be surprised if one day in the not too distant future that one or more of your favorite Indy games starts to implement loot boxes.
so break down the three options.
1. play a game with lootboxes 2. play a game without lootboxes 3. dont play a game without lootboxes nor look into which ones dont and complain that they might in the future have them and ignore and be combativity with the statement 'games i play do not have lootboxes'
When I bought into ESO it didn't have loot boxes...
Now it does.
If loot boxes become accepted and the norm, do you honestly believe that Indy developers will ignore them?
The inevitable march towards more and more aggressive and deceptive monetization practices isn't surprising anymore.
well at least in one area of gaming anyway
Nah it is pretty much everywhere... and not just in gaming...
I play video games every week and i have NEVER experienced a loot box.
They are not 'everywhere' its just people have been programmed to think only AAA games are games
There is an old saying...
Never say Never
no I am expressing the past.
I have in fact, never experience a loot box, others have. interesting that the course of action is to be combative about the options
And what I'm am saying is I wouldn't be surprised if one day in the not too distant future that one or more of your favorite Indy games starts to implement loot boxes.
so break down the three options.
1. play a game with lootboxes 2. play a game without lootboxes 3. dont play a game without lootboxes nor look into which ones dont and complain that they might in the future have them and ignore and be combativity with the statement 'games i play do not have lootboxes'
When I bought into ESO it didn't have loot boxes...
Now it does.
If loot boxes become accepted and the norm, do you honestly believe that Indy developers will ignore them?
I understand what you are saying and it is possible but I have to ask this question.
why are people being so dismissive and combative about the option of playing a game without lootboxes? why is that creating a debate? most people dont even know the titles of the games i am refering to, most of them dont even consider them 'part of the industry' you have the option to play a game with lootboxes or without lootboxes NOW, so why be so god damn defensive and argumentative about it?
yes a lot of things are 'possible' but what is up with all the excuses...jesus christ!
and to be frank I am not remotely surprised that these AAA titles are doing this, so many are so friggin blind they dont even know which developers are massive scam artists.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
So how will this be used. Will it only match you with players who also buy items to make themselves stronger or will it match you with weaker players so you can own pwn them with your bought items in the hope that weaker players will then get an epiphany and decide to buy items?
This type of matchmaking will just piss off people. Aside from allowing EA to push their micro transactions how will it promote the game itself? Will it really bring in more players when they are matched against players they have no hope of winning against unless they use their wallet.
I can tell you it won't be so cut and dry. It's far more dynamic than you think. It's not simply weak and strong players. Think of Amazon, they don't give rich people one ad and poor people another. They give you ads based on what you have purchased or have viewed. EA/Activision know every cash shop item you have viewed and purchased. If you are marked as a spender and you recently looked at 'The Sword of Doom', you will likely be placed in matchmaking, not just with strong P2W players, but specifically with people that have 'The Sword of Doom' in an effort to lure you into that purchase that they know you are already on the fence about. This essentially is an advertising/marketing algorithm that is implemented in-game through gameplay.
It won't always put weak players with strong, that hurts their bottom line by shooing people off. This is so bizarre to do in a game because it's not like retail where the objective is to sell, the game's objective is to be entertaining and fun, yet all these F2P games are putting the future sales before the initial product. But as long as we the consumers are weak, it will keep happening.
I mean imagine if a car company made a brand new car with all the features that only cost 5k but if you wanted to keep being able to enjoy driving it you had to change the oil every 500(five HUNDRED) miles and use only oil they sell. Also you had to continually pay a premium to travel over 50mph. But if you want to drive on a highway you really also need to buy the HP upgrade so you can safely merge onto the highway. Then later you could pay extra for AC that will cool the car down to 70 and extra for heat that heats the car past 50. Right so the idea is they designed this very cheap car but it doesn't come with the things you'd expect a car to come with. Then of course you could buy the deluxe addition with all the features unlocked for 50k (more than a comparable car would cost, say it's a honda civic). Right, so no one would buy this car, that company would go out of business fast.
But even further with this EA thing it would also be equivalent to an algorithm that routed your GPS to a road that parallels a highway so that you would see people with the HP upgrade and the 50+mph unlock and you would see how much faster they are going. Or if you took your car to the track, if you never spent a dollar extra on your car, who cares who you race. But if you've done 3 HP upgrades, well let's force the track to pit you against a guy with 4 HP upgrades because you already are a spender. It's winter time? Let's set the GPS to route you in a little longer path because it's cold out and you bought the extra AC so I know i can entice you to buy the extra heat package.
Right so if you have managed to read this far, you know this sounds insane. Yet for some reason gamers will buy that game. That's why EA is doing this. We will buy that game that twists the way we play it. Not only that, it's proven time and time again that we will buy that stupid game at the $120 deluxe package and still have to buy extra upgrades and be twisted (or used to twist others) into buying more and more.
The only reason EA is doing this, is because so many stupid people buy that idiotic car. So Stop It and I promise you publishers will stop doing this crap.
If I want a world in which people can purchase success and power with cash, I'll play Real Life. Keep Virtual Worlds Virtual!
I just realized and having searched the law behind these patents that SOE already owns that patent if they so choose to file for it and nullify EA's attempt. Even if they award the patent SOE can still claim it and remove EA's patent.On my memory as i am not reading it right now but it was something to the effect that ANYONE with any proof that they already used these ideas have up to a year to set an injunction and claim it for themselves.
SOE/Smedley was already doing this back when they first started the EQ2 cash shops.I distinctly remember Smedley stating that the most sales were done in the California region,so yeah they already had code to do tracking of spending.
I actually just did a few searches,i can't find the exact interview because it is tough researching back in 2009/10 but here is one bit i found which also leads credence to SOE also having rights over Activision's claim as well.
John Smedley: I think that micro-transactions are part of our future. In fact, since we introduced them to EverQuest II, 40 per cent of our customers have invested in them. We see it as an increase in business by simply offering players what they want and giving it to them for a reasonable price.
We researched our own players in depth to find out how they'd like their micro-transactions, what they'd want from them, and even if they liked them. There were actually a lot that didn't. It took us over four years of research with our player-base over many titles to make the decision - we'd rather do that than rush into it - but after a gut-check about a year ago, the results were such that we felt it was the right time about a year ago. Ultimately it was an evolutionary process for Sony Online. Many of us were really against it, to be honest, and we really made the decision based on a great deal of consideration of both the company and the player-base.
a piece of the law....
Furthermore, the clause only permits protection of the writings of authors and the discoveries of inventors. Hence, writings may only be protected to the extent that they are original,[3] and "inventions" must be truly inventive and not merely obvious improvements on existing knowledge.[4] The term "writings of authors" appears to exclude non-human authorship such as painting by chimpanzees and computer code written by programmed computers,[5] but the issue has not been tested in litigation.
So 2 things,first Activision or EA cannot claim their code is an improvement to claim copyright,I also notice their is a section mentions not proven in litigation if done via computer code,so not sure if that has been updated or proven.I would think since they can offer the copyright,it is binding under the law.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
So how will this be used. Will it only match you with players who also buy items to make themselves stronger or will it match you with weaker players so you can own pwn them with your bought items in the hope that weaker players will then get an epiphany and decide to buy items?
This type of matchmaking will just piss off people. Aside from allowing EA to push their micro transactions how will it promote the game itself? Will it really bring in more players when they are matched against players they have no hope of winning against unless they use their wallet.
I can tell you it won't be so cut and dry. It's far more dynamic than you think. It's not simply weak and strong players. Think of Amazon, they don't give rich people one ad and poor people another. They give you ads based on what you have purchased or have viewed. EA/Activision know every cash shop item you have viewed and purchased. If you are marked as a spender and you recently looked at 'The Sword of Doom', you will likely be placed in matchmaking, not just with strong P2W players, but specifically with people that have 'The Sword of Doom' in an effort to lure you into that purchase that they know you are already on the fence about. This essentially is an advertising/marketing algorithm that is implemented in-game through gameplay.
It won't always put weak players with strong, that hurts their bottom line by shooing people off. This is so bizarre to do in a game because it's not like retail where the objective is to sell, the game's objective is to be entertaining and fun, yet all these F2P games are putting the future sales before the initial product. But as long as we the consumers are weak, it will keep happening.
I mean imagine if a car company made a brand new car with all the features that only cost 5k but if you wanted to keep being able to enjoy driving it you had to change the oil every 500(five HUNDRED) miles and use only oil they sell. Also you had to continually pay a premium to travel over 50mph. But if you want to drive on a highway you really also need to buy the HP upgrade so you can safely merge onto the highway. Then later you could pay extra for AC that will cool the car down to 70 and extra for heat that heats the car past 50. Right so the idea is they designed this very cheap car but it doesn't come with the things you'd expect a car to come with. Then of course you could buy the deluxe addition with all the features unlocked for 50k (more than a comparable car would cost, say it's a honda civic). Right, so no one would buy this car, that company would go out of business fast.
But even further with this EA thing it would also be equivalent to an algorithm that routed your GPS to a road that parallels a highway so that you would see people with the HP upgrade and the 50+mph unlock and you would see how much faster they are going. Or if you took your car to the track, if you never spent a dollar extra on your car, who cares who you race. But if you've done 3 HP upgrades, well let's force the track to pit you against a guy with 4 HP upgrades because you already are a spender. It's winter time? Let's set the GPS to route you in a little longer path because it's cold out and you bought the extra AC so I know i can entice you to buy the extra heat package.
Right so if you have managed to read this far, you know this sounds insane. Yet for some reason gamers will buy that game. That's why EA is doing this. We will buy that game that twists the way we play it. Not only that, it's proven time and time again that we will buy that stupid game at the $120 deluxe package and still have to buy extra upgrades and be twisted (or used to twist others) into buying more and more.
The only reason EA is doing this, is because so many stupid people buy that idiotic car. So Stop It and I promise you publishers will stop doing this crap.
My view was rather simplistic indeed after what you explained.
I mean, trying not to defend such shitty practices, but..
They just patented it, not implemented it. There's a lot of different reasons to patent something, but knowing EA, they would probably be the first ones to use it for evil.
In order to patent something, you have to publicly describe it in sufficient detail that someone else could implement it. The idea of patents is that they're supposed to encourage people to create useful things by giving them the exclusive right to sell it for a while. Once the patent expires, everyone else is also allowed to create the thing that was formerly patented. That it becomes public domain eventually is part of the point.
And you talk about using something like this "for evil". As if it could be used for good.
Such patents should not be able to be filed I think its stupid given games already somewhat do this like League OF Legends has similar match-making statistics already in place perhaps it doesn't do the cash shop thing but still, patents on such stuff should not be allowed.
And tracking player spending, I already have code that can track purchases in games they are not the first to have this type of stuff, EA is nothing more than a patent troll, perhaps I didn't file for a patent but who really needs to this type of stuff is absurd.
What ever happened to being the first to get in just because you were the first to get in the queue?
Queue manipulation shenanigans for whatever reason should give you a clue about what these companies think of you.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Queue manipulation shenanigans for whatever reason should give you a clue about what these companies think of you.
They are applying Pavlovian techniques to gamers. Ring the dinner bell, and the dog salivates. They are refining the dinner bell and deploying it in almost real time with this data collection tool.
Anyone care to guess if we'll prove we have more self-awareness than dogs?
Honestly this will keep going on and on until the gaming community stops supporting this. We can act shocked and appalled on the forums but once you finish your post, where is your credit card going? You putting it away or using it to support these practices?
Comments
here is what I see and I see it all the time and I have to combat it alll the time.
The games I play are NOT considered part of the 'games' when people use the term 'games' and frankly it pisses me off.
people talk about 'games' they almost always never refer to the games I am refering to as a bucket of 'games' more over what people complain about when they talk about 'games' dont exist in the 'games' I play and yet they want to be combative, arguementive, manpulative and dismissive about the option that the are ASKING FOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
at min please at least as a bare min understand that when you use the term 'games these days' there are games that you are explictly leaving out of your rant. its frankly offensive. they ARE games
3 million people bought 7 days to die ALONE, with a player base of around 3000 people each night. we exist, we are real, we are gamers....fuck me!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
A: They can afford to not do it
B: They usually have some pressure on them to not do it
C: They have a marketing incentive to not do it
So... answer me again how your games are relevant to the problem at large of Big Name Developers shitting the bed so bad not only the linen and mattress is a write-off but the bed it self.
Beyond smug gloating?
This have been a good conversation
when one uses the term 'games these days' and variables of that phrase keep in mind that there are games you are NOT including in that term and its offensive.
it happens all the time, now regarding being combative, dismissing and arguementive about revealing games that do not have loot boxes please check yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! complaining about lootboxes being in(all) games and then being arguementive to someone who has a list of games that dont have it! and then just assuming without even looking into it that you would not like said games is...fucked up
I deal with this all the time, multiple forums every day. people are dismissive about these games even EXISTING...let alone their high sales for being non-games it appears.
I never see loot boxes in the games I play
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
1. play a game with lootboxes
2. play a game without lootboxes
3. dont play a game without lootboxes nor look into which ones dont and complain that they might in the future have them and ignore and be combativity with the statement 'games i play do not have lootboxes'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You can see they care more about business and money than they do about quality games.
They are all out to secure POWER,a foothold in the gaming territory,nothing ever looks like it is there to make it better for the gamer,usually new ways to exploit gamer's. Activision...EA,,you can both kiss my ask.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Now it does.
If loot boxes become accepted and the norm, do you honestly believe that Indy developers will ignore them?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
why are people being so dismissive and combative about the option of playing a game without lootboxes? why is that creating a debate? most people dont even know the titles of the games i am refering to, most of them dont even consider them 'part of the industry' you have the option to play a game with lootboxes or without lootboxes NOW, so why be so god damn defensive and argumentative about it?
yes a lot of things are 'possible' but what is up with all the excuses...jesus christ!
and to be frank I am not remotely surprised that these AAA titles are doing this, so many are so friggin blind they dont even know which developers are massive scam artists.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I can tell you it won't be so cut and dry. It's far more dynamic than you think. It's not simply weak and strong players. Think of Amazon, they don't give rich people one ad and poor people another. They give you ads based on what you have purchased or have viewed. EA/Activision know every cash shop item you have viewed and purchased. If you are marked as a spender and you recently looked at 'The Sword of Doom', you will likely be placed in matchmaking, not just with strong P2W players, but specifically with people that have 'The Sword of Doom' in an effort to lure you into that purchase that they know you are already on the fence about. This essentially is an advertising/marketing algorithm that is implemented in-game through gameplay.
It won't always put weak players with strong, that hurts their bottom line by shooing people off. This is so bizarre to do in a game because it's not like retail where the objective is to sell, the game's objective is to be entertaining and fun, yet all these F2P games are putting the future sales before the initial product. But as long as we the consumers are weak, it will keep happening.
I mean imagine if a car company made a brand new car with all the features that only cost 5k but if you wanted to keep being able to enjoy driving it you had to change the oil every 500(five HUNDRED) miles and use only oil they sell. Also you had to continually pay a premium to travel over 50mph. But if you want to drive on a highway you really also need to buy the HP upgrade so you can safely merge onto the highway. Then later you could pay extra for AC that will cool the car down to 70 and extra for heat that heats the car past 50. Right so the idea is they designed this very cheap car but it doesn't come with the things you'd expect a car to come with. Then of course you could buy the deluxe addition with all the features unlocked for 50k (more than a comparable car would cost, say it's a honda civic). Right, so no one would buy this car, that company would go out of business fast.
But even further with this EA thing it would also be equivalent to an algorithm that routed your GPS to a road that parallels a highway so that you would see people with the HP upgrade and the 50+mph unlock and you would see how much faster they are going. Or if you took your car to the track, if you never spent a dollar extra on your car, who cares who you race. But if you've done 3 HP upgrades, well let's force the track to pit you against a guy with 4 HP upgrades because you already are a spender. It's winter time? Let's set the GPS to route you in a little longer path because it's cold out and you bought the extra AC so I know i can entice you to buy the extra heat package.
Right so if you have managed to read this far, you know this sounds insane. Yet for some reason gamers will buy that game. That's why EA is doing this. We will buy that game that twists the way we play it. Not only that, it's proven time and time again that we will buy that stupid game at the $120 deluxe package and still have to buy extra upgrades and be twisted (or used to twist others) into buying more and more.
The only reason EA is doing this, is because so many stupid people buy that idiotic car. So Stop It and I promise you publishers will stop doing this crap.
If I want a world in which people can purchase success and power with cash, I'll play Real Life. Keep Virtual Worlds Virtual!
Even if they award the patent SOE can still claim it and remove EA's patent.On my memory as i am not reading it right now but it was something to the effect that ANYONE with any proof that they already used these ideas have up to a year to set an injunction and claim it for themselves.
SOE/Smedley was already doing this back when they first started the EQ2 cash shops.I distinctly remember Smedley stating that the most sales were done in the California region,so yeah they already had code to do tracking of spending.
I actually just did a few searches,i can't find the exact interview because it is tough researching back in 2009/10 but here is one bit i found which also leads credence to SOE also having rights over Activision's claim as well.
John Smedley: I think that micro-transactions are part of our future. In fact, since we introduced them to EverQuest II, 40 per cent of our customers have invested in them. We see it as an increase in business by simply offering players what they want and giving it to them for a reasonable price.
We researched our own players in depth to find out how they'd like their micro-transactions, what they'd want from them, and even if they liked them. There were actually a lot that didn't. It took us over four years of research with our player-base over many titles to make the decision - we'd rather do that than rush into it - but after a gut-check about a year ago, the results were such that we felt it was the right time about a year ago. Ultimately it was an evolutionary process for Sony Online. Many of us were really against it, to be honest, and we really made the decision based on a great deal of consideration of both the company and the player-base.
a piece of the law....Furthermore, the clause only permits protection of the writings of authors and the discoveries of inventors. Hence, writings may only be protected to the extent that they are original,[3] and "inventions" must be truly inventive and not merely obvious improvements on existing knowledge.[4] The term "writings of authors" appears to exclude non-human authorship such as painting by chimpanzees and computer code written by programmed computers,[5] but the issue has not been tested in litigation.
So 2 things,first Activision or EA cannot claim their code is an improvement to claim copyright,I also notice their is a section mentions not proven in litigation if done via computer code,so not sure if that has been updated or proven.I would think since they can offer the copyright,it is binding under the law.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
And you talk about using something like this "for evil". As if it could be used for good.
And tracking player spending, I already have code that can track purchases in games they are not the first to have this type of stuff, EA is nothing more than a patent troll, perhaps I didn't file for a patent but who really needs to this type of stuff is absurd.
Queue manipulation shenanigans for whatever reason should give you a clue about what these companies think of you.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Anyone care to guess if we'll prove we have more self-awareness than dogs?