Board 8 > EA has terminated Visceral (someone add a new gravestone to the site)

(+) Yeah! (+)

Fuckers.
---

Just read that article. Fuck EA. I know a new Dead Space game wasn't likely any time soon, but at least I had hope that we might see one one day.

And I didn't even know about that Star Wars game- Uncharted in the GFFA sounds fantastic! But that paragraph about what they're doing with it pretty obviously translates to "We're making it multiplayer and adding lootboxes".
---

BlackMageJawa posted...

But that paragraph about what they're doing with it pretty obviously translates to "We're making it multiplayer and adding lootboxes".

Lol. Almost certainly.
---

Return of the King was a pretty dope game
---

That game has been in development for over 3 years. Can't believe EA mucked it up this badly
---

KingButz posted...

That game has been in development for over 3 years. Can't believe EA mucked it up this badly

Tell that to ME:A
---

VeryInsane posted...

Return of the King was a pretty dope game

---

Jesus Christ, that came out of nowhere. Even though Visceral has been next on the chopping block for a while, I thought they would at least get the Star Wars game out first.

I guess it's Bioware next then.
---

One step closer to the Crash.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beVfNvmRm7w
---

Future Cop: LAPD was a great game
---

Goddammit.

Just... fucking goddammit.

EA is just the utter, utter worst.
---

Now, are they going to learn anything from forcing this division to make single player horror games into multiplayer microtransaction games?

No, probably not.
---

And almost immediately, Activision make their counter move in the race to be named 'Scummiest Developer Ever'
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/activisions-new-patent-is-designed-to-make-you-wan/1100-6454147/

How do these people live with themselves?
---

"The system 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,"

lol
---

there are so many people who quit games over pay2win that I doubt the viability of accentuating the difference
---

don't like the top 3% of whales tend to fund the game for the rest of the 97% f2pers most of the time though?
---

I believe that's correct

so yeah maybe that would work I dunno
---

FFDragon posted...

"The system 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,"

lol

I feel like now this is known and we're on the internet that the moment anything like this happens, we know about it and a vast number of people will be up in arms about it.

And there's a lot of casual COD players who throw a fit over bullshit in their game, and if they feel it's too unfair, they will absolutely just quit rather than pay money to compete.

It'll catch some people, but I feel like this idea backfires once you have multiplayer involved in a highly competitive game targeted mostly at casuals.
---

man, don't use an article for it, just link straight to the patent/an archive of it for maximum fun. only thing that really needs to be clarified is that they were just granted this patent, despite its old filing.

https://archive.is/vQjb3

In an implementation, when a player makes a game-related purchase, microtransaction engine 128 may encourage future purchases by matching the player (e.g., using matchmaking described herein) in a gameplay session that will utilize the game-related purchase. Doing so may enhance a level of enjoyment by the player for the game-related purchase, which may encourage future purchases. For example, if the player purchased a particular weapon, microtransaction engine 128 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.

...

For example, player information may include, without limitation, a style of gameplay (e.g., aggressive), a role preference (e.g., an explicit indication by the player of such preference), a role actually played, a duration of gameplay sessions, a number of gameplay sessions played in a given login session, in-game items used or purchased by the player, membership in a clan or team, preference to play with clan mates or friends, demographic information of the player (e.g., geographic location, gender, income level, etc.), win/loss records, scores, and/or other information that may be used to determine whether a player will enjoy a given gameplay session, a match, and/or a game.

whale vs. whale fight.
or whale vs. poor people.
---

A little patent knowledge to help shed light on this.

If a patent is filed a long time ago, it probably got stuck in patent hell which means a few things:

1) There's already a similar patent out there, which means there's probably other companies that have filed or tried to file something similar, or competed with them for this patent. Because other companies are just as bad and really want this.

2) The patent office deemed nothing that set this out as unique and able to be patented. So it goes through many drafts until they say "Okay, this is a wholly unique concept."

3) Two and a half years ago isn't that long for a patent actually. Probably a little hiccup like I mentioned above, but tech patents are god damn nightmares because of how much you need to prove it's something wholly unique. They normally get declined at least one time, so they just revise until they get it. Patent office is terrible and obnoxious, but this isn't actually that different.
---

It really feels like a ton of mobile games do this already
---

they got that particular patent just today and the only comment they've made was to say it's an R&D team of theirs who filed it, not any game studio, and it's not in any of their games.

...yet.
---

R&D team filed it? Doesn't matter who filed it (and obviously R&D did) but the name on it is Activision. Fluff noise meant to make people feel better.

However, with a lot of tech patents that actual companies file, they file them just to have an option to do even 1/3 of it in the future. They might not use all of it, but it's pretty specific with the way they explain it in the two blurbs you posted, Wang.

Overall, it's clearly something they want to use themselves in the future, and while they might not be able to rig all of that to work, they'll do at least something with it. Because it's Activision and they have a track record of scummy practices.
---

Sounds like it would be illegal if it was introduced with loot boxes, with regular microtransactions where you know what you're getting it's utterly sleazy but applying that to gambling mentality of loot boxes would probably see the fair trades act sticking its nose in.

Something the gaming industry has somehow avoided for this long.
---

MenuWars posted...

Sounds like it would be illegal if it was introduced with loot boxes, with regular microtransactions where you know what you're getting it's utterly sleazy but applying that to gambling mentality of loot boxes would probably see the fair trades act sticking its nose in.

Something the gaming industry has somehow avoided for this long.

I doubt it

Like said, it really feels like a lot of mobile games do this already, and 99% of mobile games are gacha
---

I'm not so sure about the mobile front, having not much experience with, but you're sadly probably right about the continued no interference.
---

eh, total randomness is already illegal in China, and they're looking at it in the EU, too. Won't be surprised to see other countries follow suit in the next few years.
---

Just one step closer to the Crash.
---

They also made Everything or Nothing, surprisingly one of the best 007 titles.
---

Wow this is pretty heartbreaking

https://twitter.com/yumecaty/status/920784466917728257
---