The entire point of using these sorts of analytics is that you can figure out which buttons to push to get the positive response instead of the negative one on a player by player basis. Show them the cool items juuuusssttt enough and in just the right ways that they're tempted but not so much that theyre turned off.That does sound scummy, but isn't it kind of a leap to assume the new player would want to buy the weapon the veteran has instead of being discouraged to keep playing at all?
Eh, do what you like Activision, I don't buy your games anyway (avatar quote).
The entire point of using these sorts of analytics is that you can figure out which buttons to push to get the positive response instead of the negative one on a player by player basis. Show them the cool items juuuusssttt enough and in just the right ways that they're tempted but not so much that theyre turned off.
Or yknow the junior player will stop playing because they just can't win
One day in the right hands it could be transformative. There are already stories of people adjusting their games difficult on the fly based on player behaviour. If you applied this sort of technology to goals like "engagement", "fun", or "suspense" you could make something great. But that's more of a consolation for the existence of this sort of thing than a good reason for it to exist.You're right. That they use this kind of data at all is pretty scary.
Look guys, it is actually achievement for drug dealer/alcohol seller/gambling den if they managed to get themselves an addict? Jesus Christ, the US had TOO many government already, can't they just let corporate do as they please to maximize profit? Let market run loose and see the industry usher into golden age by the Invisible Hand of Algorithm!If someone is gullible enough to buy microtransaction shit thinking it will make them get better to be like their "idol" in a game, more power to Activision to capitalize on their fleeceability.
Don't they think the good players in return will quit since they're playing with what basically amounts to cannon fodder? But yeah, this is pretty bad.
Activision Statement said:UPDATE: Activision sent us the following statment in regards to this new patent being revealed, stating that the matchmaking patent was an exploratory patent that is not implemented in any title.
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.
This patent, though, specifically discusses how that system for pairing up players can also be used to entice a player to purchase in-game items.
"For instance, the microtransaction engine may match a more expert/marquee player with a junior player to encourage the junior player to make game-related purchases of items possessed/used by the marquee player. A junior player may wish to emulate the marquee player by obtaining weapons or other items used by the marquee player."
The US is trully fucked up if their (soon to be) expert can't have ethics in their own field expertise.As a Psych major going into Marketing, I think this is fucking BRILLIANT.
As a gamer, I think this is scummy as fuck and it's a practice that should be dropped immediately.
¯_(ツ_/¯
Pay $30 to win the match now.
The US is trully fucked up if their (soon to be) expert can't have ethics in their own field expertise.
Am I the junior player or the marquee player?
This was by Crecente? Doesnt that guy eat poison?Damn, that's scummy.
Nice pull from Crecente.
I wonder if this is why Infinite Warfare matchmaking is so slow.
If someone is gullible enough to buy microtransaction shit thinking it will make them get better to be like their "idol" in a game, more power to Activision to capitalize on their fleeceability.
I would say it's shady because of impressionable kids making the purchases, but that is where mom and dad need to step in and do their job. It isnt even remotely on the level of the CS:GO scandal as far as how predatory that was.
Activision have the patent, other publisher can't use same trick right? None Activision games are save then.
Wouldn't this just as well risk discouraging further purchases from the "marquee" player? "Gee, I can smoke all these scrubs... guess my dude is powerful enough..."
Can't they use it just go about it slightly different?Other publishers CAN use it, they just need to license it from Activision. If microtransactions is as profitable as they say, the high license cost wouldn't stop other publishers from using this.
Only way to stop publishers from using this is for the public to keep mtx profit below the license fee bar,or just stop buying mtx/playing mtx-games entirely.
Condrey tweeted saying hes never heard of the system and that means its not in WW2, well I mean you would say that wouldnt you.
WW2 is apparently launching with cosmetic loot boxes, so there's no point for it to be there at launch.
Two months later when they add the new loot box guns it'll be a different story!
But it's harmless, you don't have to buy them, it's cosmetic.
Have those excuses been used yet?
Jesus christ.
How the fuck is this legal?
How does that tweet confirm that its being used elsewhere?Deej on Twitter confirming Bungie does not use this tech. Which is important bc it acknowledges that it exists and is in use elsewhere.
If I were matched with a much better player who was using highly effective weapons bought through microtransactions, my reaction wouldn't be to also buy those weapons.
Instead, I'd quit playing the game for its piss-poor matchmaking.
When I constantly lose matches to a super skilled player, it doesn't make me want to take a look at what they're using. It makes me want to stop playing.
I get their logic, but I don't know that it really works the way they think it does.
but we should just accept loot boxes because if you dont like them you can just ignore them right guys
Gameplay purposefully designed to apply pressure towards microtransactions.What do lootboxes and rigged matchmaking have in common?