First, I believe EA when they say they won't use that matchmaking system in Anthem.
Second, I believe EA will use a very similar matchmaking system anyway. The patented matchmaking systems from both EA and Activision are primarily concerned with competitive games (pvp). Activision may have worded their patent so it is more blatantly about squeezing more money out of you, but that is what both are trying to do - keep you playing longer and encourage you to spend.
With Anthem being a primarily cooperative experience, I would fully expect them to use a different (but very similar) matchmaking system. It won't be about balancing teams to increase engagement (i.e. balancing win/loss), but it will still be about pairing you with suitable players and it will still be designed to increase microtransaction payments.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
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.
How's EA's one NOT driven by customer experience when it IS the entire point of said patent...? They also mention that IT DOESN'T HAVE MONETARY IMPACT! Or in their words: "Monetary impact is either neutral or such a small difference on either side that it can be easily ignored".
Damn, I know it's EA, but come on!
(Why do I have to defend Evil Arts all of a sudden?)
Because it's attempting to game the system. It's not possible to game one match for the needs of 16/32/64 or what have you different players. It will result in spectacularly long match-making waits or spectacularly imbalanced matches because a few players on one side really need a win this match!
Trying to force a result, instead of merely attempting to best match competitive players and letting the chips fall where they may. It's quite silly. Improve the algorithms that match players based on skill level, not by trying to force a certain outcome for players.
I'm under the impression that most patents are applied far in advance of what a company may plan to do one day.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
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.
How's EA's one NOT driven by customer experience when it IS the entire point of said patent...? They also mention that IT DOESN'T HAVE MONETARY IMPACT! Or in their words: "Monetary impact is either neutral or such a small difference on either side that it can be easily ignored".
Damn, I know it's EA, but come on!
(Why do I have to defend Evil Arts all of a sudden?)
Because it's attempting to game the system. It's not possible to game one match for the needs of 16/32/64 or what have you different players. It will result in spectacularly long match-making waits or spectacularly imbalanced matches because a few players on one side really need a win this match!
Trying to force a result, instead of merely attempting to best match competitive players and letting the chips fall where they may. It's quite silly. Improve the algorithms that match players based on skill level, not by trying to force a certain outcome for players.
Again, I DO NOT CARE how or why a pleasurable experience happened! Especially in a game of all things! An activity whose job IS to provide PLEASURABLE EXPERIENCES!
Sure, business deals or politics or such should be fair and transparent. Games? lol wtf. Just make entertainment happen, dam it!
Cool beans. Most folks playing a competitive multiplayer game likely don't want the developers dictating their match results.
I mean, why not apply that across the board? The NFL should've spotted the Titans two TDs the other day, that game was less than entertaining! No wait- all playoff games in every sport need to be forced to sudden death overtime, else ticket prices need to be refunded!
No. If you're looking to get enjoyment from a competitive endeavor, having the end result predetermined or unduly influenced by something outside the control of the players should be avoided, not encouraged. Avoid matching players with folks way outta their league, the fun will naturally come so long as there aren't other, unrelated issues that prevent it. (I.e. 20% increase in turn and fire rate in a Starfighter with no downsides, for instance)
Wont be buying anything from EA or a company associated with them. I think its time to just stay away from any company that has the money or R&D to develop/buy this technology.
What I see happening is EA feeding enough wins to those who spend money to trigger the dopamine response.
Non-paying customers......sorry but to the bottom of the ladder for you
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?
The difference is that EA's patent is trying to make you ENJOY the game, so if you enjoy the game, you purchase something. Meanwhile Activision's patent pairs you with a super high ranked player with a skin and HOPES that you'll think: "Gee, if I had the skin / the BiS equipment, I'd dominate like that".
Really, the only downside to EA's patent is that it puts you in HEAVEN AGAINST YOUR WILL. But how many people would TRULY say no to that, fair or not? Forced or not.
And as I said on Jim's video, this is a whole lot noise about nothing really. In this case it IS nothing to be concerned about. Because:
-> MOBAs and such were caught red handed(or however the proverb goes) trying to force the 50% winrate(or 45-55). So it wouldn't surprise me if this is simply EA patenting something that already exists only so they could flog and / or lease it around. IE: inter corporate shenanigans.
I don't think it can work quite like that, because in a PvP environment, not everyone can be in heaven. I used to play Poker for a living. We had regulars in our casinos who were sharks, we were friends. We never went for collusion, but we never wanted to destroy each other neither. Because we had to see each other every day, we were like co-workers in an office.
There was another group we didn't want to destroy, those were regular fishes. If you destroyed a regular fish, they would've stopped coming. So you had to tossed them something once in a while, same as that winrate you are talking about. It's not paradise, it's the taste of paradise and the illusion that once you have reached there, you can stay there.
I guess the same principle can be applied in a video game as well, to not to let your customers fall into a losing streak and get frustrated and leave your game.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
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.
Maybe with the recent acquisition of Fox, you'll see the X-Men in the Avengers game.
The person who asked the question clearly didn't bother reading what the patent was about: 1 vs 1 PvP matchmaking (not even teams vs teams, they haven't tested that yet and yes, I read the whole paper).
Anthem has no PvP announced, all they have shown is PvE grouped content. I can see why it isn't going to use it.
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?
The difference is that EA's patent is trying to make you ENJOY the game, so if you enjoy the game, you purchase something. Meanwhile Activision's patent pairs you with a super high ranked player with a skin and HOPES that you'll think: "Gee, if I had the skin / the BiS equipment, I'd dominate like that".
Really, the only downside to EA's patent is that it puts you in HEAVEN AGAINST YOUR WILL. But how many people would TRULY say no to that, fair or not? Forced or not.
And as I said on Jim's video, this is a whole lot noise about nothing really. In this case it IS nothing to be concerned about. Because:
-> MOBAs and such were caught red handed(or however the proverb goes) trying to force the 50% winrate(or 45-55). So it wouldn't surprise me if this is simply EA patenting something that already exists only so they could flog and / or lease it around. IE: inter corporate shenanigans.
I don't think it can work quite like that, because in a PvP environment, not everyone can be in heaven. I used to play Poker for a living. We had regulars in our casinos who were sharks, we were friends. We never went for collusion, but we never wanted to destroy each other neither. Because we had to see each other every day, we were like co-workers in an office.
There was another group we didn't want to destroy, those were regular fishes. If you destroyed a regular fish, they would've stopped coming. So you had to tossed them something once in a while, same as that winrate you are talking about. It's not paradise, it's the taste of paradise and the illusion that once you have reached there, you can stay there.
I guess the same principle can be applied in a video game as well, to not to let your customers fall into a losing streak and get frustrated and leave your game.
The principle can be clearly seen when one uses an analogy to compare it to any other game where a level playing field is desired. Attempting to balance around a desired end result, instead of allowing the players to determine the path themselves and merely providing a level and competitive playing field for all involved.
But hell, devs also find it absolutely normal to have folks buy/install their game, then pay more money to avoid actually playing the game. Nothing amiss there!
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.
Bioware has to prove that they can make a game that isn't monetized as poorly as most EA games have been. If they want it to be received well it needs to not only provide consistent content for no extra cost, but micro transactions can't be P2W. If there are loot boxes, which there will be, they can't be the main form of cosmetics either. IT'S JUST COSMETIC does not fly as well these days. I mean, look at Destiny 2. That game is getting thrown under the bus for it's micro-transactions and it is just cosmetic.
Bioware also has to prove that they can make an exceptional game again. While I enjoyed Andromeda, it was not great. It was merely okay. Imo the last good Bioware game was Inqusition and that game still had plenty of issues. It was certainly better then Andromeda, but it still had some issues. If they want fans to think of them as the Blizzard of RPGs again; they need to prove it first.
The answer is to give the player the option to have it on or off. Do you really think they will allow you choice. Of course not. I swear I can't believe that people don't mind or like micro-transactions. People who do are not gamers but customers.
The answer is to give the player the option to have it on or off. Do you really think they will allow you choice. Of course not. I swear I can't believe that people don't mind or like micro-transactions. People who do are not gamers but customers.
You can still be a gamer even if you spend a fortune in silly pay2win games.
As I see it is the question more "Does paying more actually give you any kind of combat advantages?". If if does your options are to pay, loose (in the game, not money wise) or skip the game. I skip it.
Clearly does enough people enjoy paying for ingame advanatges so it is fine that EA and Activision makes games for them. There are other games without it, maybe I see you there.
I am not against all microtransactions, selling cosmetic stuff, character slots and even bankslots is fine for me but as soon as there is any combat impact Im out of there.
The answer is to give the player the option to have it on or off. Do you really think they will allow you choice. Of course not. I swear I can't believe that people don't mind or like micro-transactions. People who do are not gamers but customers.
Clearly does enough people enjoy paying for ingame advanatges so it is fine that EA and Activision makes games for them. There are other games without it, maybe I see you there.
Ehh, I wouldn't say that. I think EA has mostly gotten away with it in their sports titles, but BF2 was the first game they tried it on the core gaming audience, at least competitively. (They did the lootbox thing in Andromeda and ME3 MP, but that was co-op so it didn't really matter) .......the results were not pretty. Activision has never let you pay for in game advantages as far as I know. Maybe if you count hearthstone cards?
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.
It kills two birds with one stone - piracy and continued revenue. It's a win for them.
You can have DRM by forcing players to be online during play. That move started what, a couple of decades ago?
My concern is we are moving to multiplayer with MT's as the primary game design of the gaming industry. FPS, Driving, RPG, does not matter, all will be multiplayer with MT's. Now you may get a solo game as part of the package, but I think that will be a temporary stepping stone. As we have seen so often, the methodology used is to always ease in changes made to increase profit, not jump right in.
We will still have indie solo, and you may have some hold outs like Bethesda, but solo play as a thriving AAA design choice is on borrowed time.
There will be only one way to make a game; we have seen MMO's become more like solo games, and solo games become more MMOs. Already the process of merging play styles is well on its way.
As I said, now 110% certainty, much ado about nothing. Also a master strike by Jim. Very deviously put together video. So that hate and fear mongering could continue(because people obviously have trouble following train of thought, let alone decipher what the picture on the screen is). But I will not stand while the facts are twisted and used in such manner. Even if I have to DEFEND EA(lolz never thought I'd say that O.o ). @azarhal Care to put a link?
Facts. Truth. Justice.
When dealing with large corporations like EA, UBI, Activision, ect. you don't always get, "Facts. Truth. Justice." For me, they are all gulity until proven innocent. Something they have earned. That is the mentality of the world we live in today anyway.
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.
So much talk, so many word and yet when the next "big" game is released most will go and insta-buy it. That's because the modern game marketing creates a fear that if you are not among the first players you will miss the greatest moment of this game's lifetime. This allows games without much "substance" to be created/sold and the cycle to be repeated fast.
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?
The difference is that EA's patent is trying to make you ENJOY the game, so if you enjoy the game, you purchase something. Meanwhile Activision's patent pairs you with a super high ranked player with a skin and HOPES that you'll think: "Gee, if I had the skin / the BiS equipment, I'd dominate like that".
Really, the only downside to EA's patent is that it puts you in HEAVEN AGAINST YOUR WILL. But how many people would TRULY say no to that, fair or not? Forced or not.
And as I said on Jim's video, this is a whole lot noise about nothing really. In this case it IS nothing to be concerned about. Because:
-> MOBAs and such were caught red handed(or however the proverb goes) trying to force the 50% winrate(or 45-55). So it wouldn't surprise me if this is simply EA patenting something that already exists only so they could flog and / or lease it around. IE: inter corporate shenanigans.
I don't think it can work quite like that, because in a PvP environment, not everyone can be in heaven. I used to play Poker for a living. We had regulars in our casinos who were sharks, we were friends. We never went for collusion, but we never wanted to destroy each other neither. Because we had to see each other every day, we were like co-workers in an office.
There was another group we didn't want to destroy, those were regular fishes. If you destroyed a regular fish, they would've stopped coming. So you had to tossed them something once in a while, same as that winrate you are talking about. It's not paradise, it's the taste of paradise and the illusion that once you have reached there, you can stay there.
I guess the same principle can be applied in a video game as well, to not to let your customers fall into a losing streak and get frustrated and leave your game.
Yeah, this is what I was on about. As long as you feel and experience something...a lot of people will not care about "what" or "how" or "why". The illusion is enough for them. As long as it fulfills the desired goal.
The person who asked the question clearly didn't bother reading what the patent was about: 1 vs 1 PvP matchmaking (not even teams vs teams, they haven't tested that yet and yes, I read the whole paper).
Anthem has no PvP announced, all they have shown is PvE grouped content. I can see why it isn't going to use it.
Ah 1v1? Who cares then.
As I said, now 110% certainty, much ado about nothing. Also a master strike by Jim. Very deviously put together video. So that hate and fear mongering could continue(because people obviously have trouble following train of thought, let alone decipher what the picture on the screen is). But I will not stand while the facts are twisted and used in such manner. Even if I have to DEFEND EA(lolz never thought I'd say that O.o ). @azarhal Care to put a link?
As an old grumphy idiot I have to say.. I am more annoyed that you can patent an algorithm than the knowledge of existence of such. I mean seriously, did you really think you were not getting analysed in every detail? mobile games have done this for years.
So much talk, so many word and yet when the next "big" game is released most will go and insta-buy it. That's because the modern game marketing creates a fear that if you are not among the first players you will miss the greatest moment of this game's lifetime. This allows games without much "substance" to be created/sold and the cycle to be repeated fast.
I did not mention the other reason why everything must now be online, which is about gaming fashion. As Nikass is alluding to here.
This is not about just ensuring pre-orders, it is about making sure you want to be with your friends online as the game launches. Everything is geared to making sure you will be online having invested in the game; be it time, money or indeed friendship before a review comes out.
I see most gamers as Hollows in Bleach. They exist to consume games because its what they know.
Just look at Twitch.
New game comes out, all the big paid for streamers hype it up.
People all jump on the bandwagon, join in the hysteria.
Then streamer abandons game in a week or two because it wasn't a game they would have bought themselves but their job is done. They sold the hype for the game companies. Moving on.
Amazes me how predictably a game at release is at the top and then quickly drops like a sack of.........
I only by games that are on sale now. My advice is try and at least hold out and not buy at full price anymore.
Specially in the age of releasing unfinished games and then charging a second time for the fix.
P.S. Bioware, do you really think I believe you...........
This matchmaking shit is easily one the evilest things I’ve heard of in the gaming world.
Really? My guess is that you haven't heard much. I've actually heard of smaller companies (not mentioning anything) which listen to conversations of certain members and then customize cash shop items based on their chats.
Comments
Second, I believe EA will use a very similar matchmaking system anyway. The patented matchmaking systems from both EA and Activision are primarily concerned with competitive games (pvp). Activision may have worded their patent so it is more blatantly about squeezing more money out of you, but that is what both are trying to do - keep you playing longer and encourage you to spend.
With Anthem being a primarily cooperative experience, I would fully expect them to use a different (but very similar) matchmaking system. It won't be about balancing teams to increase engagement (i.e. balancing win/loss), but it will still be about pairing you with suitable players and it will still be designed to increase microtransaction payments.
Trying to force a result, instead of merely attempting to best match competitive players and letting the chips fall where they may. It's quite silly. Improve the algorithms that match players based on skill level, not by trying to force a certain outcome for players.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I mean, why not apply that across the board? The NFL should've spotted the Titans two TDs the other day, that game was less than entertaining! No wait- all playoff games in every sport need to be forced to sudden death overtime, else ticket prices need to be refunded!
No. If you're looking to get enjoyment from a competitive endeavor, having the end result predetermined or unduly influenced by something outside the control of the players should be avoided, not encouraged. Avoid matching players with folks way outta their league, the fun will naturally come so long as there aren't other, unrelated issues that prevent it. (I.e. 20% increase in turn and fire rate in a Starfighter with no downsides, for instance)
What I see happening is EA feeding enough wins to those who spend money to trigger the dopamine response. Non-paying customers......sorry but to the bottom of the ladder for you
There was another group we didn't want to destroy, those were regular fishes. If you destroyed a regular fish, they would've stopped coming. So you had to tossed them something once in a while, same as that winrate you are talking about. It's not paradise, it's the taste of paradise and the illusion that once you have reached there, you can stay there.
I guess the same principle can be applied in a video game as well, to not to let your customers fall into a losing streak and get frustrated and leave your game.
Anthem has no PvP announced, all they have shown is PvE grouped content. I can see why it isn't going to use it.
But hell, devs also find it absolutely normal to have folks buy/install their game, then pay more money to avoid actually playing the game. Nothing amiss there!
Bioware also has to prove that they can make an exceptional game again. While I enjoyed Andromeda, it was not great. It was merely okay. Imo the last good Bioware game was Inqusition and that game still had plenty of issues. It was certainly better then Andromeda, but it still had some issues. If they want fans to think of them as the Blizzard of RPGs again; they need to prove it first.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
As I see it is the question more "Does paying more actually give you any kind of combat advantages?". If if does your options are to pay, loose (in the game, not money wise) or skip the game. I skip it.
Clearly does enough people enjoy paying for ingame advanatges so it is fine that EA and Activision makes games for them. There are other games without it, maybe I see you there.
I am not against all microtransactions, selling cosmetic stuff, character slots and even bankslots is fine for me but as soon as there is any combat impact Im out of there.
You can have DRM by forcing players to be online during play. That move started what, a couple of decades ago?
My concern is we are moving to multiplayer with MT's as the primary game design of the gaming industry. FPS, Driving, RPG, does not matter, all will be multiplayer with MT's. Now you may get a solo game as part of the package, but I think that will be a temporary stepping stone. As we have seen so often, the methodology used is to always ease in changes made to increase profit, not jump right in.
We will still have indie solo, and you may have some hold outs like Bethesda, but solo play as a thriving AAA design choice is on borrowed time.
There will be only one way to make a game; we have seen MMO's become more like solo games, and solo games become more MMOs. Already the process of merging play styles is well on its way.
When dealing with large corporations like EA, UBI, Activision, ect. you don't always get, "Facts. Truth. Justice." For me, they are all gulity until proven innocent. Something they have earned. That is the mentality of the world we live in today anyway.
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
This is not about just ensuring pre-orders, it is about making sure you want to be with your friends online as the game launches. Everything is geared to making sure you will be online having invested in the game; be it time, money or indeed friendship before a review comes out.
Just look at Twitch.
New game comes out, all the big paid for streamers hype it up.
People all jump on the bandwagon, join in the hysteria.
Then streamer abandons game in a week or two because it wasn't a game they would have bought themselves but their job is done. They sold the hype for the game companies. Moving on.
Amazes me how predictably a game at release is at the top and then quickly drops like a sack of.........
I only by games that are on sale now. My advice is try and at least hold out and not buy at full price anymore.
Specially in the age of releasing unfinished games and then charging a second time for the fix.
P.S. Bioware, do you really think I believe you...........
Really? My guess is that you haven't heard much. I've actually heard of smaller companies (not mentioning anything) which listen to conversations of certain members and then customize cash shop items based on their chats.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------