Activision's Matchmaking Patent

[Stg-Flame]

https://kotaku.com/activision-patents-matchmaking-that-encourages-players-1819630937

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned here yet and I know Kotaku isn't a reliable place for news, but it's the first hit I got on Google when trying to find more information on this.

From what I understand, this would give Activision free reign to change their matchmaking systems into two groups: Those who have purchased microtransactions vs those who haven't. Their ultimate goal would be to either steamroll the other team with Pay-2-Win items in an effort to help persuade players to buy into microtransactions to help level the playing field; or just turn the game into a popularity contest to showcase the cosmetic items on a grander scale to influence microstransaction purchases.

So far, Activision has stated: "This was an exploratory patent filed in 2015 by an R&D team working independently from our game studios. It has not been implemented in-game."

Regardless of their stance, I'm mainly against microtransactions - even purely cosmetic ones. It feels like the developers don't see their customers as anything more than a bottomless wallet. For games like TF2 where the majority of the microtransactions were (haven't played in a few years) cosmetic only, it never bothered me; but as time went on and more and more people bought into the cosmetics, the developers let bugs and exploits fall to the wayside while they worked on churning out more hats. It left a bad taste in everyone's mouth when it became apparent the developers were more focused on the microtransactions than actually fixing some of the more glaring issues in their game (not specific to just TF2).

 

[BSim500]

So far, Activision has stated: "This was an exploratory patent filed in 2015 by an R&D team working independently from our game studios. It has not been implemented in-game."

"Not implemented..." Yet... The biggest problem with all the cr*p we have to put up with in modern gaming isn't the first game to use it, it's when the more subtle versions get "normalized" out of typical gamer apathy and then devs start "pushing the boundaries" a couple of years later. If the current micro-transaction craze keeps up, then I fully expect 2019-2020 AAA games to have "full on" pseudo-paywall junk like this. As you said, even cosmetic MT's aren't harmless when it impacts their priorities (if it's lucrative enough, then they'll spend more out of their budget on that and less on bug-fixing / optimization).

Only good news (for me) is that the last Activision game I bought was Call of Duty (2004). That Golden Era of Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Quake 2-3, etc, is long over and due to stuff like this, that's not going to change anytime soon.

 

[Stg-Flame]

So long as people continue to buy into micro-transactions and it continues to be profitable, they will keep doing it. Sure a new hat or costume is only $2, but you already paid $60. A new costume every few weeks, or hell even few months, will eventually add up and in the end, you've spent an easy $150 on a single video game. It was (is still?) far worse with mobile games like Clash of Clans. I worked with people who would regularly pump $20 a week into the game and their stance was "it's only $20", but after six months of playing the game, they had dumped almost $500 into a game they played for maybe five minutes at a time.

Oh well. If Activision starts implementing this into their matchmaking systems and it looks to be profitable, just expect to see it more and more down the line. Personally, I don't even look at AAA titles anymore considering I've had much more rewarding experiences from indie developers and kickstarted games.

 

[Aikouka]

So long as people continue to buy into micro-transactions and it continues to be profitable, they will keep doing it. Sure a new hat or costume is only $2, but you already paid $60. A new costume every few weeks, or hell even few months, will eventually add up and in the end, you've spent an easy $150 on a single video game.

Is that necessarily a bad thing though? There are two points that really should be made here:

1. Consumers don't always have a budget available for a game, and I think this leads to misconceptions. Typically, a product is budgeted a specific amount, which may be overrun, or as most suits hope, underrun. The game's profits go toward this budget. However, this doesn't mean that the company can't have an extra pool of money for "extras" (i.e. DLC). DLCs are funded through this budget, which could run alongside the game's development. (All aspects of development aren't fully saturated at all times.)
2. DLC created after the game's release is far more likely to be completely separate from the game's original budget. In other words, purchasing that new skin is helping to keep modelers and artists employed between projects.

Essentially, it's hard to know exactly where the money for these DLC comes from, and I think consumers tend to create unrealistic expectations simply because we're so far removed from the development process. A parallel example is how Kickstarter funds are often represented as the entire amount (i.e. "Project X earned Y dollars and still can't finished!?"), which usually ignores Kickstarter's cut, uncollected backings, and physical reward costs.

 

[Stg-Flame]

Is that necessarily a bad thing though?

Yes, but I completely understand the points you've made. However, most triple A developers are funded by shareholders in the company - similar to kickstarter supporters except shareholders call the shots. When a company like Activision tells their shareholders they have come up with a new way to make money off a game with minimal effort, do you think they will tell them to put that money toward more content to keep the players satisfied with the base game? Not a chance. Some maybe, but the majority shareholders in large gaming companies are rarely gamers themselves. Going back to Fallout 4's release, someone let it slip that the game was pushed out ahead of schedule and chocked full of bugs because two of the major investors (shareholders) said they would pull their funding if the game wasn't released when it was. They simply didn't care if it was finished or not, they just wanted it out so they could see a return on their investment.

Fast forward to 2018+ when this patent could start affecting future titles, I don't see many investors wanting to invest their money in more content and leave microtransactions and DLC as an afterthought when microtransactions have continually shown to be very profitable already. If they can find a way to manipulate the matchmaking - and even normal multiplayer - to help influence microtransactions, I can only assume we will see less completed content and more "Upgrade to Silver Tier to access this dungeon - otherwise go farm the low level area for months on end just to reach the same level as those who shell out an extra $10".

I know it's an extreme way to looking at things, but when it comes to large companies and investors, I keep my expectations extremely low. That way, if this does become a realization, it won't surprise me at all. Besides, I know most people think about microtransactions as "yea, but it's only $10, it won't kill you to give up McDonalds for one day" which I completely understand, but on the grand scale for a new game, you can easily have 30,000 players on at any given time. Just assume half of those players have the mentality listed above and multiply that by $10 and the company just made $150,000 in a single microtransaction.

 

[Crono]

This is one of the reasons I don't like multiplayer games anymore. They are experiments in social engineering, whereas I just want a storytelling experience, or even just a braindead shooter like Doom.

Granted, even in single player games there is some amount of manipulation and motivation - part of what makes a good game (especially for RPGs) is getting you to care through the gameplay, atmosphere, music, and story - but this takes it to another level of attempted psychological control in order to extract money out of you, the same way casinos do.

These companies might be doing it innocently enough (which is the same excuse fast food chains have), just looking to "optimize" the experience and for their own success as businesses, but in the end it creates a highly addicting product where users feel compelled to spend excessive amounts of "real" money on in-game items like loot boxes.

 

[Aikouka]

Going back to Fallout 4's release, someone let it slip that the game was pushed out ahead of schedule and chocked full of bugs because two of the major investors (shareholders) said they would pull their funding if the game wasn't released when it was. They simply didn't care if it was finished or not, they just wanted it out so they could see a return on their investment.

But this is a very different example than just saying that post-release DLC is a bad thing. If I like a costume and am willing to pay $5 for it, that's not a big deal. However, if that costume provides bonus capabilities/stats that aren't available to those that haven't shelled out the money, then that is a problem. I do think DLC gets a bit too much of a bad rap though. We all make assumptions that launch DLC was "taken from the game", but it's not even possible to prove that. Although, I'll certainly complain about pre-order DLC that has different variations at different outlets. That's just a bit silly and potentially exploitative. However, if those become paid afterward (similar to what Gearbox did with Borderlands 2's Gamestop-only DLC), that's fine.