You can tell yourself if you don't like it just don't play any Activision Blizzard games but that's easier said than done. I know as soon as either Diablo 4 or that rumored Diablo 2 remake is finally announced I'll be excited and have forgotten all about this shitty match making patent.

@an_ancient: The idea that you can get duplicates in that game is also insane.

@facelessvixen said:

Here's the thing, this clearly doesn't work. It hasn't showed any signs of stopping so as simple as it is... people ARE buying their games and ARE playing into the psychology. It's like the pre-order practice, people can't help themselves. And not necessarily the same people who claim they wouldn't do it but that for any one person that is grossed out by it there's a dozen others that goes "welp, it's my money I do what I want" or "oooh this isn't so bad, you guys are overreacting" or "well they gotta find a new business model to support the ongoing support" and slowly but surely gives them ground to continue in this direction. People who casually play and don't really think about the overarching problems to the industry and whales also contribute to these practices unknowingly.

Always "online" games, day 1 patches, pre-orders, microtransactions, blind loot boxes will all continue until they're no longer profitable.

@lanechanger: I would say this isn't an example of "it not working" and more an example of "people just don't bother trying it."

@nicksmi56: Yeah no thats just sad.

I wasn't gonna buy their games anyway. Too busy playing older multiplayer shooters.

@whitegreyblack: just because you attach your morals to something doesn’t mean that is a universal truth.

Do I think this could make for a less enjoyable product? Yes. Do I think this is evil? No. It’s pragmatic and effective judging by similar systems being used in the mobile space. If people are going to let some company “trick” them into buying something, so be it. Doesn’t bother me I have this handy option called not buying into it if I don’t want to.

This is what happens when we, the market, demand ever more advanced and complex titles that are more and more expensive to make and half of us still buy things used to save $10 bucks at least some of the time. The industry has to figure it how to pay for these titles he way they are now.

It’s one thing to say “I don’t think I will want the end product of that process.” It’s another to say it’s evil and wrong and “gross.” Is it gross to employ hundreds or thousands of people? Is it gross to continue to do so? Is it gross to continue to maintain the value of the shareholders’s assets?

Basically just don’t pay for the shit if you don’t like it. If you do that, it’ll go away. If you don’t it will stay. You think online passes went away because people posted on forums? No they went away because they weren’t financially viable.

Another reason I'm glad I never got into multiplayer games, and why I'm spending the majority of my play time now emulating games. EA and Shadow of War are just the beginning for AAA single player games, it'll get way worse before it collapses under it's own weight.

For me, it's as easily done as said. I don't understand people who abandon every multiplayer game almost as soon as they pick it up. I've been playing L4D2 for years and years and this year I've gotten hardcore into Max Payne 3, which has a small but active community. I don't NEED more multiplayer games. It's very easy for me to just ignore the new online games and their anti-consumer practices.

@opusofthemagnum: Almost nothing you have attributed to me saying was actually present in my post? I don't see the words "evil", "gross", or a single thing saying I think this practice means the company should go out of business or not make money.

If you do not see this the actions described in black and white in the patent as "manipulation" (a word I did actually use) I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Also, what a complete fallacy to say that if I am against what I consider to be willful manipulation of a company's audience to equate to not wanting the company to be able to do business, be viable, give its shareholders value, and continue to employ hundreds or thousands of people. That was a real stretch and treats me like some sort of maniac.

Also, the entire argument of "don't complain about it, just don't buy it" is silly. I could be petty and just blast "don't like my comment, don't comment on it and just don't read it" at you, but that is equally as silly. It's okay to disagree with each other, both have the right to voice our positions, and not put words into each other's mouths; but rather treat each other with more respect than that and not discount our right to engaging in the conversation.

Meh, I mean it sounds nefarious when we try to apply this method/art to any number of specific or hypothetical scenarios but if you did that with even half the patents large companies like Activision are holding...well you'd be wearing a tinfoil hat. As someone pointed out this is likely going to be applied to the mobile marketplace, and even if it is applied to full priced titles, then I'm not all that concerned either. Every year I end up with more games than I can play, and most of them appeal to one niche or another. Sure, maybe Activision puts this in D3stiny. That's fine, I probably won't buy it and instead I'll just buy one of another million games that doesn't use a matchmaking system driven by microtransactions that I'd like to play but never make the time for. Such is the life in a consumerist society.

While this is incredibly scummy, holding a patent doesn't necessarily mean you're going to use it. Remember all those awful patents for interactive advertisements that Sony filed? Fortunately those were never implemented.

I almost prefer to see a terrible idea patented than a really good one. For example, Namco patenting the idea of putting minigames in load screens to ensure no one else could include that in their games. That was really shitty. I would have loved to have something to do while waiting through the long load times common in last generation.

I'm slowly but surely caring less and less about video games, good job ol' ActiBlizz.

Is that something similar to CSGo's matchmaking? You can pay to get matched up with others that have bought in. It kinds of weed out the rest of the community from them

@whitegreyblack: i’ll Give you that, I assumed by your stance and language that you were jumping in on the same wagon as everyone else, but if you think it’s anything other than tricky why is it so important to call it out? If it isn’t gross and you don’t think it should receive any response besides not paying if you don’t want it... then what is your stance? If I take your comment literally all I really know is you are observing traits of the patented system.

Also, I didn’t intend to say that you cannot or should not speak out. What I said was that doesn’t usually do much, money talks far more than words do.

@lanechanger: pre-orders are struggling actually and publishers are starting (slowly) to respond by changing their expectations and their focus. Online passes were short lived. You said it yourself, it continues until it isn’t profitable anymore. The way you get there faster is by voting with your wallet. Wait a day to buy the game, don’t buy microtransactions, etc.

Much like my (our?) Republic here in the states, the free market doesn’t let one single person or a tiny minority quickly make change. That is good overall, and the free market slowly adjusts and adapts the same way. Heck even season passes are changing, several major releases with free DLC or new DLC strategies or just no bundle pricing.

It works, it’s just not a power you can wield as an individual, only influence slightly and wait for the market to work things out.

Video games have simultaneously never been better or worse. This is like some genuinely gross, predatory shit on a whole 'nother level than just plain ol' lootboxes. Everyone always said, "well, it's cosmetics so they don't matter"...but like clearly they do fucking matter if some company is doing this.

I'm someone who cares very deeply about the appearance of my characters and I don't want to subject myself to any lootboxes because the temptation is too strong. It means I'm missing out on a lot of multiplayer games these days, but fuck 'em. I'll just play through my backlog and/or find a multiplayer game that doesn't prey on it's players

This news makes me just sure I'll continue to take that stance. It makes me angry, but it's also kind of sad in a way that this is where we are now.

@opusofthemagnum: I thought my first post was pretty cut and dry (though dripping with smarmy sarcasm - I'll admit that). I think psychologically manipulating your audience into buying something, rather than offering a great high quality product at a fair price and in an honest fashion (which, I feel, is required for the true essence of the "let the market decide" / "money talks" mantra that a lot of people talk about to work as intended) is bad form, and bad business.

When you reply with a "don't buy it and it will go away" argument, it ignores the entire argument I make that the tactics that are being floated by this patent are psychological manipulation of their customer base. It's not, in my mind, a good enough argument to tell someone they should just tell people it will all go away if we ignore it, when at the same time these systems would be subtly manipulating the structure, progression, and reward systems of the game to manipulate players into the psychological desire AND the actualized successes in the game's systems to a much more "satisfying" degree, when they play into the micro-transaction system.

Am I calling for the palace to be burnt to the ground? No. Am I waxing on about wishing the industry would show a bit of class in how they do business? Yes. It's complicated.

There's too much money at stake for all major publishers to not be doing this in the future, if they're not already. I don't see how Activision can enforce this patent though. EA could be doing the same thing but how do you prove they are infringing on someone else's patent by doing so? Matchmaking is like a "secret sauce" that companies don't have to divulge unless ordered to by a court of law, and is Activision going to take it that far if they aren't 100% sure they'll win?