BioWare Will Not Use the Recently-Patented EA Matchmaking Algorithm - Anthem - MMORPG.com

SBFord

BioWare Will Not Use the Recently-Patented EA Matchmaking Algorithm - Anthem - MMORPG.com

Anthem News - Last week it came to light that EA had filed a patent for a matchmaking algorithm to "dramatically increase the odds for players to purchase microtransaction items". Fans of BioWare's upcoming Anthem expressed concern that this algorithm would be included when the game is released, supposedly later in 2018. However, Technical Design Director Brenon Holmes took to Reddit in a brief post to disabuse fans of that notion.

Read the full story here

BabyFace765

You know what...anything that comes out of EA's @ss, any game, any word, any promise....not gonna believe them. They can set themselves on fire, i'm already waiting for something similar to Destiny 2 happening.

Ohhh we have listened to player feedback and we had no idea that this system did that, even though we made the game, we will take care of it.
Ohhh we hear our players loud and clear, and we respect, we are sorry...

[mod edit]

cheyane

They said their stock did not really suffer and they expect to do well and the Star Wars Battlefront fracas was blown out of proportion so sorry I don't believe them either. Are we really going to take their word and how will we know if they are using it or not. They could use it and just say they are not.

alkarionlog

yeah because they would really come out and say yes we are using it.

i'm more surprised with the stated bioware fans, they still have fans?

dotdotdash

The problem that Bioware has in this instance is simple: why should we believe them?

The debacle with Mass Effect Andromeda, and the way EA butchered the studio post-release and forced them to abandon long term support (as well as the Mass Effect fanchise in general terms), is a demonstration that Bioware exists only as a branding label. The point is that even if the branded team say they're not going to do something, EA will force them to do it if that's what they want. So at best, we can expect that Anthem won't have this "service" at launch, but that doesn't mean that EA won't push it on the title eventually.

dotdotdash

Gorwe said:

And why wouldn't they use it? I don't see anything wrong with it. In fact I see a lot of potential therein. Except it not being "fair". But then again, how many people actually PREFER FAIR?



(cheats, cheat mods, trainers, exploits, aimbots, easy mode...all highly popular...)



Yeah, not many at all.

A fatuous analogy; the total population of gamers range into the hundreds of millions. A minority of that number "cheat" in online games. A vast majority want "fairness" in both terms and perception.

If you want to carry this discussion on, I'll gladly burn your straw man to the ground.

Cygi

"Do you think that BioWare can keep its word?"

No.

They're under the EA's shoe.

"Bioware" is just a name right now.

Coolit

It's hard to believe anything coming from EA these days and that goes for the studios they own too.

The proof is in the pudding.

Albatroes

"Let us hold your wallet, we promise we wont go through it..." I'll be honest, EA has kind of been dead to me after they said "modern players desire linear single player titles less compared to a few years." Their linear single player titles is what brought me to them in the first place...

flizzer

Friends don't let friends play EA games.

Margrave

I refuse to buy anything from EA

Scot

Gorwe said:

And why wouldn't they use it? I don't see anything wrong with it. In fact I see a lot of potential therein. Except it not being "fair". But then again, how many people actually PREFER FAIR?

(cheats, cheat mods, trainers, exploits, aimbots, easy mode...all highly popular...)

Yeah, not many at all.

All the examples you gave were either against gaming ethos or were choices be players, like picking easy mode. The algorithm in question encourages players to buy an advantage, it is P2W and players will have no choice if it is used.

Every step of the way the gaming industry has encouraged players to accept easymode, even aim assist is just that. They discouraged, banned and prosecuted exploits, aimbots etc. They did not want cheats in their games, until players could pay them for cheats with MT's.

Yes the players are being hypocritical to an extent, but only a minority cheated. Where as the big name companies have moved, or are planning a move to pay for your cheats via MT's. The companies hypocrisy is on a hugely grander scale, I think they intend to eventfully only make games online, with MT's.

Aeander

Gorwe said:

And why wouldn't they use it? I don't see anything wrong with it. In fact I see a lot of potential therein. Except it not being "fair". But then again, how many people actually PREFER FAIR?

(cheats, cheat mods, trainers, exploits, aimbots, easy mode...all highly popular...)

Yeah, not many at all.

In a multiplayer context, this type of system would be a disaster in which the game, not the player, would determine when the player gets to win.

In a single player context, I'd love this. I'm the type of player that doesn't care about achievement. I just want a comfortable challenge that keeps me engaged without causing undue stress. Games need more flexible difficulty settings in general.

Sovrath

cheyane said:

They said their stock did not really suffer and they expect to do well and the Star Wars Battlefront fracas was blown out of proportion so sorry I don't believe them either. Are we really going to take their word and how will we know if they are using it or not. They could use it and just say they are not.

When they say "their stock didn't suffer" they are talking long term, not that little dip.

If you look at their stock it has recovered and is fine.

Iselin

Well it's nice to know that they have no intention of screwing up Anthem this way or at least that they're saying that. Let's wait and see what other ways they come up with.

Ikeda

I just had a survey sent to me by EA over Battlefront 2. In it, they asked what I would like to see added to the game. Amongst all the checkboxes, there was not an item to make the enjoyment of my single player experience better.

Every one of the things was an item, skin, boost, or something else to make me pay for.

These polls/surveys are used to indicate where to focus developer time on. And it's CLEAR where EA wants that time to be spent.

Scot

Ikeda said:

I just had a survey sent to me by EA over Battlefront 2. In it, they asked what I would like to see added to the game. Amongst all the checkboxes, there was not an item to make the enjoyment of my single player experience better.

Every one of the things was an item, skin, boost, or something else to make me pay for.

These polls/surveys are used to indicate where to focus developer time on. And it's CLEAR where EA wants that time to be spent.

It is not just EA, I think it was Eidos who said after DEMD it was online for them now. This is a shift happening across most of the big names in the gaming industry, solo play and anything that is not P2W is on borrowed time.

ConstantineMerus

Scot said:

Ikeda said:

I just had a survey sent to me by EA over Battlefront 2. In it, they asked what I would like to see added to the game. Amongst all the checkboxes, there was not an item to make the enjoyment of my single player experience better.

Every one of the things was an item, skin, boost, or something else to make me pay for.

These polls/surveys are used to indicate where to focus developer time on. And it's CLEAR where EA wants that time to be spent.

It is not just EA, I think it was Eidos who said after DEMD it was online for them now. This is a shift happening across most of the big names in the gaming industry, solo play and anything that is not P2W is on borrowed time.

Yes they have expanded their team and actually some good people with great experience in online gaming development. They have an Avengers title in the work, I guess that'll have at least a multiplayer mode if not designed around the online features completely. This could be easily the reason behind closing down Marvel Heroes. 

Although I personally wished they worked on an X-Men game, but Avengers is the next best thing. I really don't understand why no one is making an X-Men game, the movies have been killing for almost two decades now. 

Mensur

BabyFace765 said:

You know what...anything that comes out of EA's @ss, any game, any word, any promise....not gonna believe them. They can set themselves on fire, i'm already waiting for something similar to Destiny 2 happening.



Ohhh we have listened to player feedback and we had no idea that this system did that, even though we made the game, we will take care of it.

Ohhh we hear our players loud and clear, and we respect, we are sorry...



Yeah, not gonna buy the whole "not sure where this is comming though" from your mothers it's comming, yeah...she needs the extra money for a bigger dildo.... lier

The last part of this quote deserves an Oscar lol

Aeander

ConstantineMerus said:

Scot said:

Ikeda said:

I just had a survey sent to me by EA over Battlefront 2. In it, they asked what I would like to see added to the game. Amongst all the checkboxes, there was not an item to make the enjoyment of my single player experience better.

Every one of the things was an item, skin, boost, or something else to make me pay for.

These polls/surveys are used to indicate where to focus developer time on. And it's CLEAR where EA wants that time to be spent.

It is not just EA, I think it was Eidos who said after DEMD it was online for them now. This is a shift happening across most of the big names in the gaming industry, solo play and anything that is not P2W is on borrowed time.

Yes they have expanded their team and actually some good people with great experience in online gaming development. They have an Avengers title in the work, I guess that'll have at least a multiplayer mode if not designed around the online features completely. This could be easily the reason behind closing down Marvel Heroes. 

Although I personally wished they worked on an X-Men game, but Avengers is the next best thing. I really don't understand why no one is making an X-Men game, the movies have been killing for almost two decades now. 

Licensing feuds. Fox owned the Xmen movie rights and Disney was actively removing or preventing Xmen from appearing in Marvel games in order to avoid advertising for a competitor. That's why Marvel v Capcom Infinite lacks Xmen. That's also why Fantastic Four were removed from Marvel Heroes for future purchase.

Fox didn't own the game rights as far as I'm aware, and thus couldn't license them itself.

Seeing as how Disney now owns 21st Century Fox, I expect to see Xmen reappear in games in the near future.

Itchen1000

I love BioWare. But EA I still wish to avoid like the plague. After 2017 I will gladly wait a month and wait for the smoke that is the "Hype train" to clear to see what is left

ConstantineMerus

Torval said:

I'm not sure what the difference between the EA and Activision patents are. They're both patents designed to encourage purchases, so how are they different?

Not sure if all the information is available to public, shouldn't be. But here's an article explaining some details, sorry I'm on mobile now so can't write a short version now:https://www.pcgamesn.com//ea-matchmaking-microtransactions-eomm-engagement-patent 

Aeander

Torval said:

I'm not sure what the difference between the EA and Activision patents are. They're both patents designed to encourage purchases, so how are they different?

Methodology.

Activision wants a matchmaking system which determines which items you might be interested in, matches you against superior players that have that item, and creates a desire within you to impulse buy that item. It then uses you to advertise that item to others by giving you easier matches designed to make that item stand out. In other words, matchmaking is now based on microtransactions rather than skill.

EA wants a matchmaking system that artificially creates a more "fun" experience for the player by statistically determining then length of win streaks and loss streaks that keep players playing the longest. It will create matches that are likely wins or sure losses in order to actualize this. The incentive for them is that engaged players are more likely to stay and keep spending. Thus, the entire idea of competition is theoretically destroyed under EA's system.

mrputts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xbLO5bB0Tk

MadFrenchie

Aeander said:

Torval said:

I'm not sure what the difference between the EA and Activision patents are. They're both patents designed to encourage purchases, so how are they different?

Methodology.

Activision wants a matchmaking system which determines which items you might be interested in, matches you against superior players that have that item, and creates a desire within you to impulse buy that item. It then uses you to advertise that item to others by giving you easier matches designed to make that item stand out. In other words, matchmaking is now based on microtransactions rather than skill.

EA wants a matchmaking system that artificially creates a more "fun" experience for the player by statistically determining then length of win streaks and loss streaks that keep players playing the longest. It will create matches that are likely wins or sure losses in order to actualize this. The incentive for them is that engaged players are more likely to stay and keep spending. Thus, the entire idea of competition is theoretically destroyed under EA's system.

It's destroyed under both systems.  At least EA's seeks to ensure you're not just repeatedly getting curb-stomped by power purchasers.

Both systems are the inevitable result of consumer apathy against design decisions driven not by customer experience, but solely by revenue extraction from said consumers.

Aeander

MadFrenchie said:

Aeander said:

Torval said:

I'm not sure what the difference between the EA and Activision patents are. They're both patents designed to encourage purchases, so how are they different?

Methodology.

Activision wants a matchmaking system which determines which items you might be interested in, matches you against superior players that have that item, and creates a desire within you to impulse buy that item. It then uses you to advertise that item to others by giving you easier matches designed to make that item stand out. In other words, matchmaking is now based on microtransactions rather than skill.

EA wants a matchmaking system that artificially creates a more "fun" experience for the player by statistically determining then length of win streaks and loss streaks that keep players playing the longest. It will create matches that are likely wins or sure losses in order to actualize this. The incentive for them is that engaged players are more likely to stay and keep spending. Thus, the entire idea of competition is theoretically destroyed under EA's system.

It's destroyed under both systems.  At least EA's seeks to ensure you're not just repeatedly getting curb-stomped by power purchasers.

Both systems are the inevitable result of consumer apathy against design decisions driven not by customer experience, but solely by revenue extraction from said consumers.

I agree. Though, here is where I think Torval's question comes into play: 

At what point does paying for power (or not paying for power) under EA's system determine whether you are a sure win or a sure loss for the other team?