Activision Patent Would Profit From Player Mismatches

[TechMan]

https://www.geeksaresexy.net/2017/10/18/activision-patent-profit-mismatches/

The patent has a detailed explanation of the process, but it’s a simple concept:

    A less experienced player would be matched up with a more experienced player who possesses a particular item that gives them an advantage in the specific scenario.
    If and when the less experienced player loses the game, they’ll then get a suggestion to buy the item in question. The idea is that the player will infer that it must be a smart purchase to help in future games.
    If the player buys the item, in their next game they’ll be matched in a scenario where having the item gives them a big advantage. The idea is that they’ll likely win, conclude they made a worthwhile purchase, and be more susceptible to the system in future.

A sucker is born every minute...

[Devonai]

Doesn't seem that devious to me.  Many games (which I refuse to play, btw) make the advantages of their DLC quite plain.

[230RN]

Izzat anything like bringing a knife to a gun fight?

[HankB]

No real surprise here - I just wonder how this game strategy is "unobvious" (a requirement of patentability) since many - perhaps most - online games have a "pay to win" component; whether they admit it or not, it's part of their business model. It wouldn't surprise me if the strategy described was implemented by someone years ago.

[230RN]

"Unobvious."

Now there's a nice, solid, denotative technical term.

Sort of like the legal term "reasonable."

Just sayin'.

[Firethorn]

I think the deviousness here isn't so much the bought item providing an advantage.  The trick, I think, is the bought item being given a hidden advantage above and beyond the posted text, temporarily.

IE you buy a new gun in some game.  Rather than being matched with your skill level(or above), you're placed against a player(if live) that is below your skill level, resulting in an 'easy' fight that the game doesn't tell you was basically thrown for you to win with your new gun.

You're happy, because the gun worked.  Over time though, you get to be the bitch boy again, and it's time to buy yet another new gun.

[RevDisk]

I've really cut back on my video gaming in last years.

I hate online play. I don't want to deal with random strangers acting like brain damaged chimps. I've work retail if I wanted to do so. Lot of game companies put more work into screwing their users than making a good game. Part of that is cutting down or cutting out the 'single player' side. Frequently down to a storyline that is an one to three hours long. With the assumption that you'll not get furious because you'll spend time playing the online side. Which is easy to make, though it requires server farms to host.

There's still good games out there, but generally storyline and originality are failing in place of pretty pictures and getting hosed by the gaming company whenever possible.

[HankB]

. . . I hate online play. I don't want to deal with random strangers acting like brain damaged chimps . . . There's still good games out there, but generally storyline and originality are failing in place of pretty pictures and getting hosed by the gaming company whenever possible.

I played Mechwarrior Online for a while, but the P2W component gradually seemed to become more obvious.

World of Tanks has too many potty-mouthed idiots ("Keyboard Commandos") in the player base, and the in-game economy makes progress difficult for a casual player. I also hate the pre-programmed INaccuracy of the tank guns in the game - they're less accurate than Civil War era smoothbore muzzle loading field guns. Plus I'm convinced the RNG - Random Number Generator - that tallies hit results really ISN'T as random as they claim.

Armored Warfare is a better tank game, but the developers have screwed things up by ignoring the player base, and seemingly doing the exact opposite of what the player base wants on several occasions. So it's really a game with a lot of unrealized potential. AND . . . a lot of the player base has evaporated. (Developer's attitude was "WHERE ELSE will the players go?" The answer was "ANYWHERE else." Duh.)   

[K Frame]

"I don't want to deal with random strangers acting like brain damaged chimps."

And yet, here you are at APS every day.

 

[230RN]

"I don't want to deal with random strangers acting like brain damaged chimps."

And yet, here you are at APS every day.

 

That's one I did see coming.  Don't do games, but I was intrigued by the merchandising strategy, so kept reading.  Me go now.

[Jamisjockey]

World of Tanks has too many potty-mouthed idiots ("Keyboard Commandos") in the player base, and the in-game economy makes progress difficult for a casual player. I also hate the pre-programmed INaccuracy of the tank guns in the game - they're less accurate than Civil War era smoothbore muzzle loading field guns. Plus I'm convinced the RNG - Random Number Generator - that tallies hit results really ISN'T as random as they claim.

I play on console. What gets me is the number of nothing-special premium tanks. Bad players buy $50 tanks and get wrecked by lower tier tanks.
There are several that I view as pinatas for me to beat on for XP when spotted.  I salivate when I spot a Tog II, especially in something like my Chaffee light.
Also, several times a year you can earn premium tanks.  I earned both the Fatherland and Motherland Tier 8's and swap the crews between my top tier russian tanks and those two to build their xp.


I did splurge for the Type 59 it is a fantastic tank.

[HankB]

I play on console. What gets me is the number of nothing-special premium tanks. Bad players buy $50 tanks and get wrecked by lower tier tanks.
There are several that I view as pinatas for me to beat on for XP when spotted.  I salivate when I spot a Tog II, especially in something like my Chaffee light.
Also, several times a year you can earn premium tanks.  I earned both the Fatherland and Motherland Tier 8's and swap the crews between my top tier russian tanks and those two to build their xp.

OK, you're a more serious WoT player than I am, my top tanks are a couple of Tier 7s. But I agree about the Tog II . . . it's so slow, when you catch one without allies, an LT can just keep circling faster than the TOG's hull and turret can traverse - you just keep hammering it with relative impunity.

But sometimes, hammering doesn't work. Once I had one of the light Brit tanks and came up against a KV-2 opponent, which was 2 tiers higher than what I had. I absolutely could not pen it from any direction - front, back,  sides, turret, hull, and tracks were completely immune to my little popgun.

Then when I got my first tank with an 88mm L/56 gun (a far cry from the L/71 to be sure) I bounced 21 consecutive shots off 4 or 5 different opponents in one game. And by then - casual player or not - I knew enough not to try penning the front glacis or gun mantle, especially of higher tiers. The problem was, I couldn't pen the sides of either hull or turret of ANYTHING on the other side that day. That's when I began seriously doubting WoT's implementation of RNG.

[MechAg94]

So why is this marketing idea a patentable idea? This seems like something the patent office should reject.  I also have a hard time imagining someone else hasn't already used this concept. 

[K Frame]

The more I think about this, the more I think that this is really the underpants gnomes scenario...

Phase 1. Create concept and patent it.

Phase 3. PROFIT!

[230RN]

I'm still waiting for a private patent enforcement system to be developed.

They would operate under official Letters of Marque to protect their clients' interests.

You "patent" something with Guido's Patent Protection Service, LLC and they tell the world to lay off, this idea is theirs, and you pay a premium to them out of the profits and license fees you make from "their" "patent."

Somebody steals the idea or device or process or music or literature, whatever, and Guido, LLC gets together privately with them to discuss the fees they have to pay to use the idea.



And no legal court debates over silly things like what the definition of '"is" is, or finely tuned arguments over what "extension of prior art" means.

I'm not signing this one so nobody will know who posted it.

Pic credit in Properties