Activision has patented social engineering of Microtransactions

[WMGroomAK]

I think I'm safe in saying that microtransactions are seriously becoming a cancer in the gaming community, however, Activision appears to have found a way to one up this in a recent patent it was granted.  The patent in question details the use of matchmaking and social engineering to encourage players to make more purchases, also titled as "System and method for driving microtransactions in multiplayer video games".

 

HardOCP Link (Originally saw this here): https://www.hardocp.com/news/2017/10/17/activision_uses_matchmaking_tricks_to_sell_ingame_items

 

https://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/news/how-activision-uses-matchmaking-tricks-to-sell-in-game-items-w509288

Quote

Activision was granted a patent this month for a system it uses to convince people in multiplayer games to purchase items for a game through microtransactions.

 

The "System and method for driving microtransactions in multiplayer video games" was filed in 2015, but granted on October 17th, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

 

The patent details how multiplayer matches are configured, specifically how players are selected to play with one another. That process used by Activision involves a computer looking at a wide variety of factors including skill level, internet latency, availability of friends and other things. It then goes through a system to first soft-reserve a slot in a game for a player and then assign the players to the same match.

 

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 example, in one implementation, the system may include a microtransaction engine that arranges matches to influence game-related purchases," according to the patent. "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 patent goes on to note that the same information could be used to identify which sorts of in-game purchasable items should be promoted.

 

The system can also be much more specific in its analysis of potential customers in a game:

 

"In a particular example, the junior player may wish to become an expert sniper in a game (e.g., as determined from the player profile)," according to the patent. "The microtransaction engine may match the junior player with a player that is a highly skilled sniper in the game. In this manner, the junior player may be encouraged to make game-related purchases such as a rifle or other item used by the marquee player. "

The system can also drop players into matches that will make use of an in-game-related purchase, according to the patent. 

 

"Doing so may enhance a level of enjoyment by the player for the game-related purchase, which may encourage future purchases," according to the patent. "For example, if the player purchased a particular weapon, the microtransaction engine may match the player in a gameplay session in which the particular weapon is highly effective, giving the player an impression that the particular weapon was a good purchase. This may encourage the player to make future purchases to achieve similar gameplay results."

This just seems really horrible to me and kind of leaves me at a loss for words... Seriously, with each new microtransaction story, it's like the game companies are trying to emulate drug dealers to try and get gamers hooked on a games microtransaction system to reap higher profits.  

 

Patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/9789406

 

Update: So on the good news front, if Bungie and Activision are to be believed, this is currently not being implemented in any of their titles...

 

Quote

But Activision tells Glixel that the technology is not currently in any games.

 

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

 

Bungie also confirmed to Glixel that the technology isn't being used in Destiny 2.

 Again, this is if the companies that are implementing this are to be believed.  Personally, I still hold my doubts as if it was well implemented, then you may not be able to tell whether or not this is influencing your game or gameplay.

Edited October 18, 2017 by WMGroomAK
Updated article

[NumLock21]

This won't go away, when you have idiots saying spending $5 bucks for some pixel add on is worth it. 

[PCGuy_5960]

Quote

Activision has patented social engineering of Microtransactions

 

[Sniperfox47]

Trolololololol! The AAA game industry is amazing. I love it when companies do stuff like this, makes me all warm and fuzzy thinking how much they care about my money

[Nowak]

This is not okay.

[The Benjamins]

As long as playable content is not behind a play wall and their is not Pay to Win, Pay to Progress aspect I am fine with it. basically I am only fine with League of legends skins or CSGO skins type stuff.

[Princess Luna]

Wow Activision beat EA and Ubisoft on something like this? what world do we live nowadays [:

[WMGroomAK]

1 minute ago, The Benjamins said:

As long as playable content is not behind a play wall and their is not Pay to Win, Pay to Progress aspect I am fine with it. basically I am only fine with League of legends skins or CSGO skins type stuff.

Reading the article, I wish it was just cosmetic stuff, however, it sounds more like they will try to help you justify other in game purchases by putting you in games that gives that purchase a slight advantage.  Not sure if that is Pay to Win or Pay to Progress.

[vanished]

Quote

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."

lol so basically they realized that unfair matchmaking would make new players more likely to pay-to-win, and so they patented the idea of intentionally making match-making worse. gg

 

I guess the good news is that now that they (somehow!?) have a patent on this, it will force every other company to do match-making really well or ...they'll get sued for patent infringement? idek anymore...

[The Benjamins]

3 minutes ago, WMGroomAK said:

Reading the article, I wish it was just cosmetic stuff, however, it sounds more like they will try to help you justify other in game purchases by putting you in games that gives that purchase a slight advantage.  Not sure if that is Pay to Win or Pay to Progress.

League flirts with Pay to Progress by allowing you to unlock champions but most people only will master a handful so its not a big deal.

[ARikozuM]

Well...

[WereCat]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

lol so basically they realized that unfair matchmaking would make new players more likely to pay-to-win, and so they patented the idea of intentionally making match-making worse. gg

 

 

The micro-transaction model is getting out of control, we need to stop it NOW!

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

As long as playable content is not behind a play wall and their is not Pay to Win, Pay to Progress aspect I am fine with it. basically I am only fine with League of legends skins or CSGO skins type stuff.

This is like a gateway drug. Game developers who don't sell out to enable micro transactions won't have as positive/healthy profit margins meaning indie games and the like will be discouraged and we will see a few big umbrella corporations handling all major franchises destroying the gaming industry. 

[AlTech]

This is totally not ok.

[MrRavens]

19 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

Wow Activision beat EA and Ubisoft on something like this? what world do we live nowadays [:

Not that surprised actually lol. If it's gonna be anyone, I'd expect Activision. They're pretty greedy lol. 

 

But damn, I wonder what else this engine can do? And what happens for another dev implementing 1 of the methods in their game. I guess as long as they do make some dynamic engine that does all the stuff they're safe?

[Master Disaster]

Can the gaming industry find any more ways to make themselves seem like the biggest scumbags on planet earth?

 

Seriously every time I think there is nothing left for them to do they go and do something even worse.

 

By this point they must be legitimately surprising themselves with this shit. I reckon they have a secret "biggest scumbag of the year" industry award and the winner gets a million as a prize.

[MoonSpot]

28 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Well...

Fvck...

[ATFink]

I think this could be a blessing in disguise. Maybe if Activision hogs this patent other developers will think twice about using this type of micro transaction knowing they may have to pay royalties. Maybe other games will be forced to improve their matching algorithms. Let this patent die with Activision.

[Ryujin2003]

As if COD weren't already a dying franchise...

 

Not only do they charge a crap to for the game, 60 for basic, up to 100 for "Deluxe" or whatever else they are calling it, more you've got this...

 

Guess that's why my main purchasing point is single player story. If it doesn't have that, I'm not doing it. And if I pay for Deluxe it gold, it better come with everything the first damned time...

 

I don't know whose more upset? NBA 2k## or COD kids?

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, Ryujin2003 said:

I don't know whose more upset? NBA 2k## or COD kids?

I am! Single-player campaigns are dying. Treyarch does a fantastic job, but it seems like DICE, IW, Slegdehammer pretty much take an action movie and try to expand with more action. We're paying for multiplayer that gets hacked on the first day, paying for shortcuts and boosters for multiplayer, and for skins so that our characters can look "unique" in said multiplayer...

[Ryujin2003]

2 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

I am! Single-player campaigns are dying. Treyarch does a fantastic job, but it seems like DICE, IW, Slegdehammer pretty much take an action movie and try to expand with more action. We're paying for multiplayer that gets hacked on the first day, paying for shortcuts and boosters for multiplayer, and for skins so that our characters can look "unique" in said multiplayer...

I completely agree. I've lost all enthusiasm for the new Star Wars Battlefront, was upset when Rainbow Six Siege didn't have campaign, and have hated the idea of forced online multiplayer. From the looks of it, Gran Turismo is headed this way as well.

 

Long gone are the local lan and split screen... I don't want to pay $60+ to sit in a lobby and play games against random people who breath loudly into a crappy headset... I don't want to play a game and hear someone's domestic dispute in the background.

 

Giveme single player campaign with an amazing story line, or give me Tetris.

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, Ryujin2003 said:

I completely agree. I've lost all enthusiasm for the new Star Wars Battlefront, was upset when Rainbow Six Siege didn't have campaign, and have hated the idea of forced online multiplayer. From the looks of it, Gran Turismo is headed this way as well.

 

Long gone are the local lan and split screen... I don't want to pay $60+ to sit in a lobby and play games against random people who breath loudly into a crappy headset... I don't want to play a game and hear someone's domestic dispute in the background.

 

Giveme single player campaign with an amazing story line, or give me Tetris.

Well then buy a ps4 and play one of their many story driven games like uncharted and such. 

[Froody129]

Just realised what they patented is the reason I own a CSGO knife...

 

I wonder how it will affect games already using this system

[Ryujin2003]

2 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Well then buy a ps4 and play one of their many story driven games like uncharted and such. 

I've got one, but use itoatly for my kid, although Last of Us is awesome. I generally PC. I've been hooked on Ghost Recon, Civ 6, Doom, and started back on Tomb Raider recently. I'm waiting for full reviews of Assassin's Creed before I go on that.

 

Haven't played anything Activision in years. I'm after the first Black Ops, I've not been their Target customer.

[Not_Sean]

Lol, well that settles it for me than, on pure principle I will only sail the high sea's when it comes to Activision, I refuse to support this kind of business model, I'm ok with some stupid micro here and there but honestly to the point where it is affecting the game, get FKD