Activision’s statement on that exploitative obvious isn’t enough

Activision's statement on that exploitative patent isn't enough

“This has been an exploratory patent filed within 2015 by an R& G team working independently from our online game studios. It has not been applied in-game. “

That’s all Activision has to say for itself right after word surfaced of a patent to get a system designed to push players towards buying things like loot boxes if they play online games. It’s not a great reaction for a number of reasons, but let’s glance at the patent first.

Early Wednesday, Glixel reported on a patent that will Activision first filed with the Oughout. S. Patent and Trademark Workplace in 2015 and was given on Oct. 17. Its name: “System and method for driving microtransactions in multiplayer video games. “

The patent’s brief description offers an item example of how such a system may work:  

For instance, the device may match a more expert/marquee participant with a junior player to motivate the junior player to make game-related purchases of items possessed/used from the marquee player. A junior participant may wish to emulate the marquee participant by obtaining weapons or some other items used by the marquee participant.  

In other words, the machine is built to prioritize matchmaking in such a way that will someone who’s gotten cool in-game baubles is more likely to match up along with someone who hasn’t. The rationale being: minus cool items but you see someone that does, you’re encouraged to spend profit the hopes of getting those great items.

That’s the heart from the invention here: it looks at your own player profile â€? a behind-the-scenes measure of not just your performance, but your choices, style of play, and so on â€? plus seeks out similar profiles owned by players that have more stuff compared to you, so it can group a person together.

That’s only a part of it, however. Once you have an item, the particular newly patented system is built to give you a sense of feeling good about your purchase â€? with the aim of encouraging future buys.

As the patent software notes in one example:

[I]f the player purchased a particular weapon, the particular microtransaction engine may match the gamer in a gameplay session in which the specific weapon is highly effective, giving the gamer an impression that the particular weapon was obviously a good purchase. This may encourage the gamer to make future purchases to achieve comparable gameplay results.  

So in case you get a cool gun that’s specifically good for, say, close-quarters engagements, dating might prioritize putting you right into a match against lesser players, or even on a smaller, more confined chart, in order to make you feel good about your brand-new toy.

This runs totally against the spirit of how matchmaking typically works in online games. Every online game works differently, but fundamentally, makers tend to speak openly about prioritizing fair match-ups above all.  

It’s a betrayal of the player’s rely upon a system that is ostensibly built to deal with everyone fairly and equally.

A system like this tips the particular scales in a way that prioritizes the business-side financial interests over positive participant experiences.  

If a game can be dropping you into a match to create you feel better about money you devoted, it’s simultaneously tilting the odds â€? and the fun, by association â€? against your opponents.

Or more simply, it’s a betrayal from the player’s trust in a system that is evidently built to treat everyone fairly plus equally.

That’s the obvious, summed up. And now we’re to Activision’s statement. Here it is once again:

This was an exploratory patent filed in 2015 simply by an R& D team operating independently from our game studios. It offers not been implemented in-game.

The language that this patent can be “exploratory” distances Activision from the ickiness of an exploitative system. The fact that this hasn’t been added to any current online games is besides the point â€? the particular patent was still submitted, the particular invention is still owned.

The bigger problem is Activision’s decision to reply to this discovery with a statement which is centered only in the here and today, with no added context or description. No sense of the “why” from it all. We know it won’t be part of the particular matchmaking in Call of Responsibility: WWII at launch, thanks to the tweet from Sledgehammer Games co-founder Michael Condrey, but that’s this.

In my request for comment, I extremely specifically asked to know if you will find plans to implement this system since the patent has been granted.  

Unfortunately, the two sentences above had been all our Activision spokesperson can share at this point. The explanation applies to all of games under the Activision Blizzard coverage, including Destiny � which is officially the product of a publishing agreement with all the independently owned Bungie.

That statement isn’t enough. This recently patented matchmaking system looks extremely shady on the surface of things. It appears to betray the spirit from the experience that player-versus-player games are made to offer.  

Out there within the wider world, fans deserve evidence. And please, don’t stop requesting until you get one.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here