EA is using dynamic difficulty adjustments in multiple games, wants to get rid of fair matchmaking

DSOGaming writes: "Back in October 2017, it was revealed that Activision is working on a new matchmaking system that would pair players together in order to encourage microtransactions. And while this system has not been implemented in any game as of yet, another publisher is searching into getting rid of fair matchmaking in multiplayer games. That publisher is no other than EA who has already implemented its dynamic difficulty adjustment in multiple games."

[XiNatsuDragnel]

Oh hell naw no EA ACTIVISION GAMES EVER. im going to pirate these.

[IGiveHugs2NakedWomen]

And the truth is revealed. They've been plotting to scam gamers all along.

[bouzebbal]

worse and worse this company.
honestly gamers should boycott them just for a month.. a single month with 0 income (no EA game purchased, no game played online) and they will change for the better.

[TankCrossing]

Explain how adjusting the difficulty to keep players enjoying the game is a scam?

[Taz X14]

@TankCrossing
Adjusting difficulty to make a game more engaging, or to push you to better your understanding of the ins and outs of a game is totally acceptable. However, let’s be honest here, EA’s goal is not to push gamers to be better at a game, but to encourage players to buy micro transactions. Gamers are smart enough to see between the lies that they’re saying.

What they don’t understand is that gamers want to play something that challenges us, but they think that it’s the tools that make us better and not the skill. We want incentives to take on more difficult challenges in a game and not more in game adds attempting to persuade us to pay more.

All this boils down to is that they know gamers often ignore in game ads, so this is just another marketing scheme to market add-ons and micro transactions albeit subliminal rather than readily apparent. That’s what makes this all the more insulting...

[TankCrossing]

But making the game so challenging as to encourage micro-transactions would not increase player engagement, it would have an adverse effect. Therefore the stats given contradict your theory.

Player engagement obviously leads to greater player spending, no denying EA's motive. Making games enjoyable is surely the "correct" way to go about it though, no?

[cooperdnizzle]

@TankCrossing. I think the NBA should adjust the height of the rims according to the teams average height, that way everybody can play/dunk

[RacerX]

@tanmcrossing, when they filed the patent for this new matchmaking idea, it revolves around the idea that they would place a gamer in a room full of better players that have MT Content. This new player would get smashed, and thus be encouraged to purchase MT's. Once they purchase the MT, the gamer would then be routed to a room full of terrible players, to feel more godlike, and be encouraged to purchase MT's again in the future.

[Christopher]

***Explain how adjusting the difficulty to keep players enjoying the game is a scam?***

1. There is no proof that adjusting the difficulty to maintain a level of challenge actually keeps players enjoying the game. Having more 'engagement' doesn't mean that as it's an out of context figure. What is engagement, spending habits, hours played, achievements? Are there more people playing games now than before? How do you attribute the specific act of DDA to increased engagement?

2. If a player is always being challenged, it is affecting a few things.

First, you are constantly being put into a position where you are less likely to win. People play games to get better and to be able to win. How does constantly adjusting that level of difficulty without them knowing it allowing that to happen?

Second, how is a player able to know if they are being challenged or if their tactics have improved or if other factors have affected their game? Was it lag/ping/etc.? Did they go up against one really good player? Did that new technique they learn just not work and should they give up on it? With a constant revolving door of difficulty to match the player's recent actions, they are less capable of determining what works, what doesn't, or even figure out why they aren't working.

Third, this promotes a common issue in MMOs where only the top 1% truly excel while the rest are left with mixed results that they don't understand. In MMOs, though, that factor tends to come down to time. In online shooters and the like, that factor comes down to understanding your tier and where you stand. If there is no tier, only a constantly revolving door of difficulty adjustments, then you don't understand your place and you are constantly being told to run towards a finish line without an understanding of whether the system is rigged against you or not. This is why tiers exist in other games, to give people a bit of control over knowing that they will face like-skilled individuals.

3. As to how this will encourage microtransactions? Look at #2 and realize that all of that will lead people to trying to find ways to be placed at a position they once were at rather than to be challenged constantly and usually seen as losing more than they have in the past. Combine this with the promotion of lootboxes in EA games, such as seeing what killed you in SWBF2, to having the concept of lootboxes normalized by making them the leveling process in the economy of the game itself. If people are getting 'more challenged' than they like, they will either quit or find a way to reduce that challenge, and EA and most businesses know that that means a good percentage of people will try to pay some extra cash to improve the game rather than throw away the $60 they already spent on it.

4. EA controls the level of affect DDA has. Just like loot drop chances, this is yet another calculation that EA can adjust to encourage players to spend more money at will. Think about if a casino had a blackjack table, only the dealer could at any time adjust the chances of getting any card in a deck. This is what EA is able to do with lootboxes and what they are now able to do with DDA. Rather than keeping things equal, fair, and straight line, they instead use algorithms to challenge people rather than tiers, which are widely known and easily understood by the public. DDA does away with that and puts up a curtain between the users and the developers.

[Taz X14]

@TankCrossing
While I see your point, I think you might be taking this idea from a very naive point of view. Their idea of fair and balanced has been proven to be quite the opposite as shown by the slews of controversy they've faced in the past few years (this year especially). If their idea of balance is how they've treated loot boxes, and their idea of a finished product is Andromeda, then can you honestly sit back and say that they're to be the ones to utilize this system to truly benefit gamers' experiences. For nearly an entire decade, they've been involved in some form of controversy and each year it has gotten worse and worse (hopefully culminating in this past years' garbage fire). Gamers have just been burned too many times and way too often as of recent to not see what they're really trying to do.

Seriously take a look at this list and tell me they've got gamers' enjoyment as a top priority:
2008: Spore DRM controversy
Jim Brown Licensing controversy
2012: Mass Effect 3 Ending
2013: Battlefield 4 DLC
Sim City 2013
2014 Dungeon Keeper Mobile
2015: Star Wars Battlefront
Need for Speed: No Limits
2017: Mass Effect Andromeda
Need for Speed Payback
Star Wars Battlefront 2

And these are just those immediately apparent, as I'm sure there are a ton more...

[ziggurcat]

@Christopher: brilliantly said.

[rezzah]

Activision started it.

[bow2yoda]

@tankcrossing its psychology. if a player is forced to play with people that freely blow their money to be op... you are more likely to spend money to be able to compete.. you know.. pay to win

[TankCrossing]

But nothing here alludes to matchmaking with pay to win buyers. That's all Activision.

The EA stuff talks about increasing "player engagement", which is the best indicator they have for player enjoyment.

[Chexs1990]

@tankcrossing They also said that a 40 hour grind to unlock heroes in BF2 was to establish "a sense of pride and accomplishment"

It's essentially a system that defines your gaming experience based off of an algorithm, which means that you as a player, are getting told how to play.
Whether the intentions are MT's or not (but come on, it's EA), it's still derogatory to the gaming experience.
There's a reason why it's usually divided in difficulty levels.

[bow2yoda]

Tankcrossing.. the only thing that ea has been stubborn with is their micro transactions.. if any game proves that is battlefront 2 where they cried that gamers ruined progression because they had to remove micro transactions. pay attention my dude.

[Markusb33]

@tankcrossing you know we are talking about EA. You are giving way to much benefit of the doubt here. It's like asking a crocodile to look after your chickens and being surprised by the outcome. Ea don't learn as they are a multi million dollar company who think of customers as sheep. Easily fooled and manipulated not to mention having a very short memory.

[franwex]

Why not just simply stop playing them at all. Including pirating?

[bow2yoda]

because their corrupt thinking is deserving of piracy to the max.

[KillZallthebeast]

Black flag was such an epic game

[RememberThe357]

Ubisoft

[TheSaint]

Don't even do that, they can claim more players are playing.

[XiNatsuDragnel]

Good point no pirating too ;)

[rezzah]

Pirate them? Drop them completely.

[UCForce]

I freaking knew it. They didn’t give a damn about balancing.

[TankCrossing]

This article is horse manure. Calm your emotions and use that logic you claim you possess.

Dynamic difficulty scaling to keep a player engaged is just smart design. Not evil, not greedy. It is just intended to make the game difficulty scale to the player, so it doesn't feel too easy or too difficult, and remains fun.

EA's own results proclaim increased player engagement "with a neutral impact on monetization."

[UCForce]

I’m not calming down. This is just like Activision did with Destiny 2. Here the freaking thing, EA isn’t allow Dice to talk with their fans.

[TankCrossing]

But nothing in the article alludes to micro-transactions or anything remotely unethical. It talks about 2 ideas to improve player engagement by making the experience and challenge level more fun.

Think of it like the AI in DriveClub. They automatically adapt to the ability of the player, so that everyone experiences a busy, competitive race instead of shooting ahead or falling behind. The first concept is basically that, but more sophisticated.

Most multiplayer matchmaking effectively follows the same principle of adaptive difficulty, attempting to find opponents of your skill level. There are definitely pros and cons to that, and EA are trying to improve it. There is absolutely no mention of a system to encourage purchasing store items as per the Activision design.

Of course when you increase engagement then you do increase the chance people will spend. Making better, more fun games is exactly how we want publishers to approach it, isn't it?

[-Foxtrot]

"Calm your emotions"

Oh here we go...the typical "it's no big deal" excuse

Only in 2-4 years we see them slowly adding more anti consumer shit and people like you pretty much defended it by telling people to "calm down" or "shut up...stop whinging"

People complain at something small because we know by now how it'll just snowball into a bigger thing. If you don't put your foot down now God knows what will happen.

[sprinterboy]

I neither agree or disagree 😊

[Forn]

They're speaking about multi-player matchmaking. Pitting low skill, no MT players against higher skilled, paid MT players.

[CorndogBurglar]

Maybe I'm stupid, but what exactly does "player engagement" even mean? Sounds kind of vague.

And if they haven't implemented this already, as they claim, then how can they have accurate numbers to support this?

[MetroidFREAK21]

Man, get the hell out of here... You sicken me as a gamer, and as a person who is trying to defend this... What's wrong with you?

[Omnisonne]

I don't know about you, but I don't like the concept of becoming better as a player, and getting essentially penalized by being used as a balancing card (i.e you're expected to carry a team) Which is what a system like this also tends to do.

I'd much prefer the way it worked with older games before all this matchmaking crap came into play (never been a fan of it for multiple reasons). Where you would be thrown into the fire and got wrecked until you adapted and improved your skill. Then after gaining enough skill you would in turn dominate the games yourself. It felt alot more natural and you could gauge your own growth as a player much clearer.

Anyway, personal preference and all that. Probably because I grew up without matchmaking in place.

[DragonKnight]

@TankCrossing: Yeah, that's not how it works. Dynamic Difficulty essentially chooses when you succeed and when you fail to maximize engagement. It's in early stages, but it is definitely meant to prioritize monetization. If you play a game with DD and you consistently lose to better players, or players with better gear, then the algorithm will match you with lower skilled players (thereby hindering your ability to improve and creating a false sense of improvement), or players with lower level gear.

If you consistently win to worse players, it will match you with better players or players with better gear until you lose a lot and the process reverses. It's all encouraged to make you want to have the better equipment. It has nothing to do with player engagement because player engagement is largely based on game quality, not success at the game. With some exceptions.

This system is a terrible idea and just further proves that EA is not in the business of making games. EA is in the business of milking gamers.

[jrshankill]

I also like how absolutely nobody bothered to read the article.

"EA concluded that it has successfully developed a system that applies this technique in multiple games and has observed up to 9% improvement in player engagement with a neutral impact on monetization."

NEUTRAL IMPACT.

The author then goes on with lines like:
"IMAGINE if such mechanics appeared in games like Dark Souls or Nioh."
"A lot of players CLAIMED in the past that the game was deliberately upping the difficulty"

I thought this rumor mongering was against N4G rules? There is nothing substantial here at all

[SunnyZ]

You do know EA patented a procedure to match weaker players against harder players who have better items gathered from 'scam boxes' in order to make the weaker player think 'hey I should also buy some scam boxes to get better items' so I can compete.

This is FACT

EA are the worst...

[DragonKnight]

SunnyZ: That was Activision, not EA. Easy to confuse the two though since both are trying to 1up each other in scummy behaviour.

[DJStotty]

so you can purposefully play "badly" on a game/multiplayer and the game adjusts to make it "easier" and then you suddenly play awesome as soon as it adjusts is smart design?

I call it closing the skill gap/noob advantage, so it doesnt matter if you are good/bad at a game anymore. And how would this affect Esport tournaments?

And Tank, that is why there is an option in the majority of games that is called a difficulty level.

[Palitera]

"I’m not calming down. This is just like Activision did with Destiny 2. Here the freaking thing, EA isn’t allow Dice to talk with their fans"

As if Dice was innocent. FFS, the reason they don't let the other guilty company speak is to fool "Dice are saints" people like you.

Good cop, bad cop.

And you fall for it like a child.

[TankCrossing]

To be clear, dynamic difficulty is for single player games, and already implemented. I've seen it first hand watching my 2 boys play FIFA 17 (yes, last year's game). They can both beat he AI, and it is fun for them.

Multiplayer _already_ behaves in the way you lot are bitching about. That's skill based matchmaking in a nutshell, and it has flaws. Principally it casts a shadow over real player progression, because getting better just earns you better opponents, keeping you perpetually average. EA are quite non-specific on how they aim to improve it, but the stated goal is to increase player engagement and not player spending.

"Player engagement" is tantamount to "fun". You can't directly measure enjoyment, but you can measure how much people play and there is an obvious correlation between the two.

Obviously player engagement is an important metric if you want to increase player spending. But making games more fun in order to make more money is not a sinister ambition.

If you just bitch about everything, nothing you say matters. In this case you are literally bitching about EA trying to make games fun. It's ridiculous.

[UnHoly_One]

My god, you people need to lose the tinfoil hats and take a reading class.

You're all ranting and raving about completely made up problems that are not discussed anywhere in that article.

Jesus Christ it's embarrassing to be a gamer nowadays.

[GHOSTxTZ]

@TankCrossing Do you work for EA? Lol

[bow2yoda]

do you work for ea? your thinking is skewed at best. EA has been one of the worlds worst and corrupt companys for decades. they do not care about fun to play games. they only care about pay to win... and if you still think that ea is in touch with their fan bases... there is this.

https://www.vg247.com/2017/...

I for one still love playing a single player game like dead space!!!! they are in for a cash grab at the expense of a fun experience. in essence they are trying to turn main stream gaming into the same thing as mobile where people just throw troves of money for NOTHING

[RacerX]

@tankcrossing.... EA employee.

[RememberThe357]

Hey! We have an EA employee in our midst, welcome sir. Too bad most of us aren't buying this crap. We'll stop expecting the worst from EA when they stop f#cking with us.

[AdonisIsBeast]

@Tankcrossing

There’s no need to manipulate the point of what their doing by stating it in the way in which you are. Why dotyou think they don’t then “choose” to matchmake by players in your overall league of competitiveness. And as the player improves and gets better it can then slowly upregulate the difficulty to match them with better players. Instead of the excuse you keep giving which is to place them in somw matches that they will be completely dominated in and in other matches where they’ll win with ease?

[Gazondaily]

Holy shit no one actually read the article and the pitchforks are out. Amazing...

[Retroman]

Either you Dumb as hell ,or can't Comprehend what gamers telling you or you work for Ea .

everyone telling you Ea is LYING about " player engagement " Its a trap to make more Money , but you Refuse to Comprehend this why? ????

I don't play Military games or games with MT i understand the issue clearly .
Pay to win take the fun out of winning the Challenge . its also CHEATING !!!!!
if you can't Comprehend that i have "the Statute of Liberty" for sell.

[Aenea]

"I’m not calming down. This is just like Activision did with Destiny 2."

So Destiny 2 has a matchmaking system where it 'handicaps' people when they are the better player?

Because that's what this sounds like! Just like a 'golf handicap' to make sure people with different proficiencies can play together...

[bow2yoda]

the idea in the new match making systems isnt to make it more challenging. it is about using actual psychology to make players spend more money... because when you cannot get any better because everyone that they are playing with are throwing their money into the air for crates to be op, forces players to pay up to be competitive. its not bull crap its manipulation of the human mind to get what you want.

[TankCrossing]

I don't take it as handicapping. More likely it just ensures that every now and again you get a match you can win. Subtle matchmaking tweaks that players probably wouldn't even notice if not for reading about it.

Kinda like the "bad luck protection" you get in WoW to keep the RNG from being overly frustrating. This is "lose streak protection", because winning occassionally makes people feel good and keep playing.

That's purely speculation on my part though.

[Aenea]

@tank

It would make the frustration less when it's 90% of the time that you lose, but it would be better if every match is exciting for all parties and a close call!

If they can pull something like that off in an online multiplayer game I would love that! Heck, publishers would love that too since it will mean that online games are open to people of any experience level which in turn means more sales, more DLC sold, more season passes, and of course, yes, the inevitable more cosmetic items sold through MT's...

It would also mean people can enjoy gaming much longer in life when reaction speeds decrease...

[gangsta_red]

@UCForce

You do realize EA has only done this for SP games right? That this technique is used to make SP games harder or easier based on how the player plays the game.

They have yet to put this fair matchmaking in any of the MP games, so this is literally a "dont worry" moment that you seem to be taking to heart.

This article is throwing out nothing but what if's and could be's and not actually saying anything as facts. No need to fly off the handle and start burning down the house of EA.

[TankCrossing]

Oh you can burn down the house of EA. Just try to use one of the many legitimate reasons available.

[2pacalypsenow]

That would explain why sometimes I can defeat a 3 star team in single player seasons, then get destroyed by a 2 star team.

Playing is Ultimate difficulty, the CPU is rigged as hell, teams that have all bronze players play like Barcelona, and my overall 88 UT plays like shit.

[Berenwulf]

It also explains all these late minute goals from the CPU. You literally can't defend these attacks, it's like they are getting a boost and you can't keep up with them.

[2pacalypsenow]

Exactly! I"m so glad I'm not the only one seeing this.

The CPU all of a sudden get a stamina boost and know exactly where I'm passing the ball and steal it.

[outsider1624]

Holy crap! You too? And not only that, i feel that the transfer system is rigged as hell too.

[Relientk77]

This BS. Just another reason why I mainly play single player games

[TankCrossing]

This dynamic difficulty scaling applies very specifically to single player games. It's also not actually a bad thing at all.

[InTheZoneAC]

Do rubberbanding wasn't already bad enough?

[rdgneoz3]

"It's also not actually a bad thing at all."

And it used to be basically called rubber banding AI. You'd be ahead in a race with a huge lead and suddenly the guys behind you are flying right by you, who have shit cars. Everyone loves losing to a trash team when they have a huge lead. Not a bad thing at all...

[DragonKnight]

It is a bad thing. It doesn't encourage you to improve yourself, but it does encourage you to open your wallet.

[SunnyZ]

Normally, yes, its not a bad thing.
When EA gets a hold of it....
Hold their beer...

[Chaos_Order]

I personally disagree. Outside of rubber banding in racing games (which has always been BS) it can rob players of the true challenging experience simply for being cautious, experimenting different approaches, or restarting an area multiple so they can attempt a perfect run without using healing items etc. I would personally be infuriated way more if a game made things easy for me just because of my playstyle rather than dying on a difficult section over and over until I get it right.

[TankCrossing]

@rdg racing is a very simplistic example, but nobody likes overtaking the pack on lap one and then not seeing a car for the whole race either.

Now think of a narrative game. Nobody wants it to be too easy, but nobody wants it to be so hard they can't finish it. Selectable difficulties is a fairly rudimentary way to allow the player to tune the difficulty, but if the game can adapt automatically to provide the "right" and "fun" level of progress and challenge for the individual, that's good.

@DK did you keep playing TLOU to improve yourself as a person, or to enjoy the game and see the story through? If publishers want to encourage me to open my wallet by making games fun... That's not so bad.

Adaptable difficulties don't need to apply to every game, but it's not some evil concept. If EA were adjusting the difficulty to ensure it was always slightly too tough so that you buy extra health potions that would be a whole different story, but they're not. They're pushing player engagement.

@Sunny, indeed. adaptive "too hard" difficulty with pay-per-health potion coming right up.

[Liqu1d]

They specifically state in the paper that Engagement Optimized Matchmaking (EOMM) can be adjusted to focus on "other core game metrics of interest, such as play time, retention, or spending.' Why are you spreading misinformation and acting like dynamic difficulty is the only topic?

[DragonKnight]

@TankCrossing: Your analogy sucks. TLOU is A) Not an EA property, B) Does not have Dynamic Difficulty, and C) Would suffer if DD was implemented. If the only way you can think a game is fun is through unchallenged progression, you need to stop gaming because all you're looking for is emotional validation. DD is encouraging you to open your wallet to MTs, not "fun games" being developed.

EA is not pushing player engagement. DD's relation to player engagement is tangential at best as people will discover, and have a problem with, a game's inconsistent difficulty. Hell, people have complained about that LONG before DD was even a thing. Rubber banding, difficulty spikes, etc.. have all been around for a very long time and people don't like them.

This system only benefits casual gamers, whales, and EA. It doesn't benefit the game, it doesn't benefit core games who invest more into the industry over longer periods of time, and it doesn't benefit the industry because we've seen how little publishers like EA care about putting out good games and instead care more about putting out better monetization schemes.

[kevnb]

@DragonKnight what are you talking about? Naughty Dog has had dynamic difficulty since the first crash game. https://youtu.be/4ZFtP8LbUY...
I think naughty dog invented it actually, you just probably never noticed it.

[Cobra951]

It's a horrible thing in any game. I want to play to a standard. Let my experience reflect my skill and dedication, good or bad, not some boring middle ground dictated by an algorithm.

[DragonKnight]

@kevnb: Your video at most describes that particular Uncharted game having DD. Where is your proof that ND has had that system implemented in ALL of their games since the first crash game on PS1?

BTW, My playthrough of UC4 (the only UC game I ever played to completion) did not have difficulty changes. I know this for a fact based on the events that occurred for me in some more difficult stages. Nothing was ever easier, I merely changed my approach until I succeeded. In particular, the monastery stage took me a lot to get through and it was never easier. So in my experience this DD never manifested.

[RememberThe357]

It should be an option at the very least. I don't like the idea of the game pushing me forward before I'm ready. And I damn sure don't like this kind of crap in MP. I've been waiting for a hardcore MP shooter for a while now and all I've gotten were money grabs that happen to be shinier graphics than their PS3 predecessors. Though I will say I've been playing through Sniper Elite 4 and it's pretty dope.

[Kribwalker]

@kevinb

i found the article to support your crash argument. you are correct, they used DD on the OG crash
http://all-things-andy-gavi...

[kevnb]

single player games arent safe, they are actually the only games Ive noticed get easier or harder on their own so far. Uncharted and Last of Us are good examples of single player games that already do this.

[kevnb]

wow so many disagrees, so much ignorance.
https://youtu.be/4ZFtP8LbUY...

[OB1Biker]

I agree but Giant Bomb are no reference haha

[kevnb]

no, but giant bomb interviewing a naughty dog dev is a reference.

[Weeblordbad]

And how on Earth do you figure GB isn't/can't be a reference?

[OB1Biker]

@Weeblord
Yea sorry I just can't take these clowns seriously and just have a good laugh checking their vids when they keep trying downplay PlayStation conferences in an unintended hilarious way
,@kev
I guess a ND dev is good ref. Apologies. GB is the last place I'd look for good ref though tbh

[gangsta_red]

@kevnb

Prime example of people flying off the handle about something they have already experienced, praised as GOTY and all because they never knew it was already there but still enjoyed it all the same.

[Gazondaily]

Haha oh snap. Lol at the disagrees as well

[Kribwalker]

http://all-things-andy-gavi...

they have been using it since the OG crash

[Weeblordbad]

@OB1

So giantbomb are clowns because they don't fawn over PlayStation conferences? Do you need someone to stroke your ego all the time? Or only when it involves a plastic box and a corporation?

[DialgaMarine]

Considering all the progression based MT’s in BF2, I wouldn’t be surprised if the system is already in place. God forbid what they’ll likely do to games like battlefield and NFS.

[OB1Biker]

' all the progression based MT’s in BF2'
Well no. How would have I got to Epic on my two classes, Aerial, and the Hero I use? Besides there is no MT

[DialgaMarine]

Progression based loot boxes are simply MT’s in the making. I don’t have anything against cosmetic loot boxes/ MT’s; just progression based ones.

[OB1Biker]

yea loot crates are a big problem and in the way of a straightforward progression. Still, theres no MT and you cant buy a loot crate. I dont know what the future updates will bring on the table but right now and since day one thats how it is.

[2cents]

Slippery slopes everywhere.

The trinity of scum that is EA, Activision & Konami are slowly bleeding the joy out of gaming and reducing the number of games I buy from them at a rapid pace.

[DragonKnight]

Konami has at least been quite quiet for awhile now, and they take their B.S. to the pachinko machines.

[2cents]

And MGS Survive...
I'm sure they will find a way to milk.

[DillyDilly]

EA & Activision scamming gamers since its inception

[XxINFERNUSxX]

So I need to download more EA games when they are cracked? Fine by me, hell I'm the one hurting you EA, and I don't give a shit LOL, hahaha in your face you shit bags \o/ What I would give if EA can read these posts.

[Weeblordbad]

Or just don't play the game? Piracy numbers just tell EA there is interest in their product. Regardless of your motive, EA will view it the same.

[XiNatsuDragnel]

True but they wouldn't get your dolla that's my goal

[Weeblordbad]

@XiNatsuDragnel

Are you 13!? You can't possibly be that stupid. This is how we got neck deep in DRM and everyone having their own PC store front. Man, what a magnificent level of ignorance and stupidity wow.

[Chaosdreams]

Honestly, I don't care what IP it is. Anything that's associated with EA I'm not touching. Sorry, just can't do it anymore. All the studios (those that still exist) won't see a dime from me. It's beyond clear that they (EA) have zero care or passion for actual gaming. It's strictly profit, and they will tarnish, morph, and destroy any studio or IP that doesn't adhere to their view.

In a way it's refreshing being able to completely say "no more" towards a set of studios. There's a fine line now, clear as day between what's for the gamer, and what's not.

[Aenea]

Haha, it's funny how people are freaking about this just because it's EA!

1) we don't 100% know what the implications of this would be
2) as far as I can tell from what I've read it actually tries to make playing against other people way more fair and much more enjoyable

In traditional matchmaking the system tries to find people who are about as good at the game as you are, but if there are only much better players than you yourself are it isn't much fun at all to keep playing. So you either keep going and trying to get better at it even tho it might not always be possible due to your own limitations or because the better players get better as well or after a while you will lose interest in the game and move on to something more fun.

Denying this is true would be absurd!

With this system it looks like they are trying to prevent this from happening. See it as a kind of a 'golf handicap' so people with different proficiencies can still play together and enjoy themselves!

[ziggurcat]

"1) we don't 100% know what the implications of this would be"

If the idea is to encourage people to spend money on MTs, the implication is that people will get thrown into matches against higher-level/more skilled players in order for those lower-leveled players to feel like they need to spend money on those fast-track packages just to be able to compete.

[gangsta_red]

There's no implication of that.
This article speculates and throws out wild theories on something that has been discussed but not yet implemented.

Most of these comments are pulling out there hair on something that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with wanting people to spend extra money.

[Aenea]

But the article and research quoted isn't about that at all tho....

If I have to buy MT's to be able to compete then the game isn't keeping me engaged longer it's actually doing quite the opposite

[ziggurcat]

@gangsta:

If you actually read what I wrote, you would have noticed that I said, "IF the idea is to encourage people to spend money on MTs..."

[gangsta_red]

@ziggurcat

Read what Aenea wrote..what EA has proposed has nothing to do with your "IF" statement. Your if statement is nonsensical.

That's like me saying "if this idea encourages me to drink more alcohol..."

[Majin-vegeta]

So basically Skill based match majing?

[chris235]

lmao. there are the tantrums again. and yet the game still will get bought like crazy. people are so cute.

[xenz]

I think they already have this system in place for Fifa 18 Ultimate Team. I’m fairly new to the game but dont consider my self to bee useless. And every match, every single time 10 times in a row I get matched up against people with much better players. I haven’t been able to win a single game.

Only times when I win is when I play against my friends or my brother.

I almost regret buying this pos on sale.

[gwumper987]

this is because you are new to the game and it has been out for a while. Almost everyone who plays UT gets the game in September when it releases so they have time to build up their teams. I never want to defend EA but thos seems to be you just coming late to the party.

[KillZallthebeast]

Pop ups, malware, ect. Wtf n4g not cool when i am on my phone.

[TheSplooge]

Yeah i keep getting the same shit. Every page i open up has a video popup on the bottom of my screen, and then once in a while I'll get the "your phone is infected with four virus" pop-up, forcing me to close the whole tab and restart what i was typing. 😒

[frostypants]

I would literally never buy a game with such a mechanism, no matter how good it otherwise was. This sort of matchmaking = broken multiplayer. Why would I buy a game with broken multiplayer?

[kevnb]

you probably already have, but its usually in single player games like this
https://youtu.be/4ZFtP8LbUY...

I have yet to see it in a multiplayer game.

[kevnb]

https://youtu.be/4ZFtP8LbUY...
Nothing new, except ive not seen it in multiplayer games.

[Scatpants]

This is actually a good thing because it paints a clearer picture of which multiplayer games we should avoid at all costs.

[bigmalky]

So winning or losing will not be based on skill level, but algorithm manipulation.

That's wrong on so many levels in competitive gaming. Lose because you're too good or win because you're still learning... So basically, it's like wrestling, the match is more or less called before you even hit the ground.

Wrong again EA.

[Weeblordbad]

If you're gaming competitively you are playing with team mates, not randoms.

[Marioraider18]

Psh, balancing is nothing for me cause I'm good at online video games. Suck it Ubishit

[knickstr]

That is terrible. This means that EA will dictate who wins a match based on if you've won or lost your previous match to keep you playing. If you lose two straight games EA doesn't want you to get frustrated and walk away from the game so they pair you with similar skilled players and then match you against a team that had way lower skill ratings trying to ensure you a win. Then after you get a win they'll likely match you against higher skill ratings so it doesn't become too easy and you get bored with the game. It's the end of actual fair competitive games and replacing it with pre determined matches on the basis that they want you to keep playing. It's very manipulative.

[Weeblordbad]

You're insane if you think current matchmaking is fair and competitive. That being said changing or mixing up skill levels you're matched with is not a new system.

[knickstr]

WeebLord, generally how most matchmaking works or is supposed to work is that you get place a certain skill rating and you get matched with and against people of the same skill rating. If you keep winning or getting better than you move up through the skill rating and play tougher opponents. Another system may use no system and just match people randomly without considering any factors.

[gwumper987]

This exact system exists in Overwatch. According to the developer, the aim of their matchmaking algorithm is 50% win rate for every player.

[Weeblordbad]

So that guy who goes 1-14 in CoD or the guy with 500 points and 30 deaths in Battlefield was part of my same skill bracket? Matchmaking does not create competitive games. 1 in 10 games is a nail biter, the rest are blow outs.

You're all crazy if you think they aren't constantly adjusting matchmaking along all kind of variables. You're extra crazy if you don't think they prioritize connection and location more. Matchmaking does not create competitive games, no competitive game of CoD ever had someone who couldn't get a kill for 4&5 minutes.

[showtimefolks]

I am so glad i am a single player gamer(sadly these loot box tactics are now in SP too)

EA logo on screen means instant no buy

activision logo on screen instant no buy

look at whats going on with destiny 2 and it's loot boxes

instead of trying to nickle and dime us how about just raise the price of all games to $69.99 but that will have to come with no loot boxes and a lot less season passes. I know it won't happen will just stick to those single player games which don't have LB and buy the ones with LB when they are under $10 and most likely used

[Stanjara]

Didn't bought an EA game for over 7 years. Never more, never more

[Dragonscale]

No surprise tbh. Theres only one thing that would have any effect on this bullcrap is to speak with your wallet. Problem is not many will. The only thing ea cares about are profit margins. Well I won't be contributing to their shady practices, haven't bought an ea game in ages. Hopefully one day their arrogance will be their downfall. Gonna keep buying Pro Evo, its superior regardless.

[agent4532]

Why do gamers buy and support Activision and EA. What is so appealing about their games and gaming brands. For me seeing gamers complain about EA/Activision games doesn't matter for gamers still buy the game.

[Weeblordbad]

The market is larger than the people on the internet complaining.

[3-4-5]

Is this saying they want people who've never played a game before ever to compete with pros just because of "fairness" ?

Why not lower the next to 2 feet so everybody can say they can dunk ?

Get rid of qualifications....anybody can be a doctor now....no need to learn or study or earn it.!

All that would do is get the people who would want to spend time playing the game.....not play the game.

They just don't "get it" because they've never had to.....there is no pressure on them.

[Weeblordbad]

What?

[badboyz09]

F*** EA We need to Get them where it Hurts. END the EA+NFL Monopoly!

[Weeblordbad]

Right because Madden's the one that makes more money! Wait? Isn't that FIFA? Oh right it is.

[badboyz09]

Both But Madden First!

[ZombieKiller]

Seems like they wanna get rid of fair "everything" for gamers

[on_line_forever]

I will continue no buying any games from EA & ACTIVISION

[Knightofelemia]

Just another excuse to avoid buying any game with the letters EA on the case.

[MetalNCarnet]

I have not played anything with an EA logo on it since Mass Effect 3. The more that comes out, the more confident I become with that decision. EA delivers nothing but low quality, bug ridden, hand holding cancers they still call games.

[ziggurcat]

Oh, EA... just when people thought you couldn't stoop any lower...

[quent]

That's why they want everything to be online these days, less control for us, more control for them

Has nothing to do with piracy, its games as a service under close monitor by these publishers to stack the odds in anyway they want

[Bleucrunch]

Now and for the foreseeable future....SCREW YOU EA.

[DillyDilly]

They want gamers to feel like they need Microtransactions

[The_KELRaTH]

There's nothing wrong with implementing a system to better target your skills against other players. It's no different to selecting a search for low ping servers. But anything like this must be selectable by the gamers and there should be rewards that match the difficulty.
It's a real shame that games from the big publishers are being developed with an aim to just scam the customer. I didn't buy a number of games recently that I would have normally and if it carries on you have to question the point in having a console and then why pay for HQ broadband which already suffers from ad companies leaching on it.

[HyperMouse]

Id prefer a hard game i have to get better at than this trash, though if it was an option, like easy, medium, hard, Dynamic, that would be awesome

[AmstradAmiga]

I personally dont see the problem. We are all wanting more reasons to not buy EA games this is yet another one.

Unfortunately we're going to have to wear the cost of helping EA fail and taking a lot of good studios and IPs with them. That is of course unless EA see the error of their ways and....yeah, not even worth finishing that line of thought.

[Petebloodyonion]

First, please read the article before flamming EA, the article is about the dynamic system already implement in SINGLE player experience and EA trying to improve the matchmaking system in online play to maximize your online stay. In no shape or form did EA mentioned that they were trying to improve monetization of microtransactions.

Now here are my thoughts on this

I have no problem with the Dynamic system for a single player game for not all gamers have the same skill in a video game. An example would be the age factor of your player. A young player has faster reflex compare to an older player.
Wih a dynamic implemented, the reaction time for a boss counter could be slowed so an older person could react properly. (example Mike Tyson in Punch-Out).

Now regarding Multiplayer,
There are many questions to be asked before passing judgment.
1) How does this system work? Is it like the dreaded Lag compensation trick?
2) IS it similar to Activision Loot box pairing?
3) Is it for coop game and the system could be like Dead Island where AI enemies are easier to kill for a low lvl compare to higher lvl?

[ChronoJoe]

Dynamic difficulty in games isn't new. Dynamic difficulty adjustment is the principle driving design component of the game 'flOw' made by ThatGameCompany. No one complained about it there.

You'd be surprised how many games feature some form of dynamic difficulty adjustment. The reality is that players don't like games to be too hard, or too easy. There's a sweet spot that helps maximise engagement with the game.

[Dragonopolis]

I believe EA is trying to find other reasons the modern gamer is frustrated with today's games other than pointing the finger at micro-transactions. After all, if a game, story, and ip/developer have all put the time and energy into a game to make it good/great people will pay for content. Unfortunately there is a huge history backing up both monthly subscriptions and micro-transactions .... which is why EA attempted to try it with Star Wars.......

EA made the commitment to head in this direction and its their company not ours.... we can choose to play or not...

Hopefully all the backlash will make EA think about creating a more balanced System..... a balance system does not necessarily translate to a fair system Unfortunately.....

Players need to be happy and need to feel like they are getting value in their gameplay or so they say.....

Dynamic Difficulty can keep people playing longer and happier but comes with caveats. In some games that have used a form of Dynamic Difficulty it can be much harder to start out in the beginning despite having a Dynamic adjustment.... AI will watch for quick leveling and adjust to make it harder.... slowing the pacing down thus (as EA put it) increase play time. This also works for Micro-transactions as well, allowing people to purchase items and packs to quick get up the ranks to more advance levels or areas of a Game....

However, Hardcore, Darks Souls, Bloodborne, Nioh Games the Difficulty continues upward, but in a Dynamic Difficulty system the Opposite sometimes happens. Another issue that Dynamic Difficulty addresses is Frustration and Non Completion..... Eventually a person supposedly wants to be Satisfied with the product they have purchased so higher levels enemies tend to level off or become easier over time but rewards are more generous than earlier levels. Never completing or finishing the game can be a real drag for the average gamer; unless you are a person who likes to play games Like BloodBorne, Nioh, Dark Souls, etc......

Applying this type of system to matchmaking would be difficult..... And there are those people out there who like the push/challenge when they enter a match..... However there is a larger portion of gamers that don't have the time to play at a high level all the time but are not necessarily novices but don't want their experience cut short because they were match with the same level player but that player plays 5 days a week 5 hours a day............

Developers have been trying to come up with the perfect system for years and EA is no different..... Not sure the Elite gamer will like a Dynamic Difficulty applied to their matchmaking but I'm sure there is a very large market out there for it.....

But.... EA..... micro-transactions are still a big reason why people were upset..... EA can improve all the other systems of gaming that also need work ..... yes Matchmaking is a problem but not the major complaint with Star Wars Battlefront 2 and definitely not the main issue people were having with micro-transactions ......

[Marz]

this is not to handicap players... i believe this is meant to keep players playing.... if a game is too difficult the majority of the audience will stop playing, if it is too easy players lose engagement due to the lack of a challenge. When i have the most fun playing a single player game is when the difficulty is challenging but i can complete it and see the end of the game. The times i have the most fun playing online is when i'm equally matched with another team. this method is to cater to anykind of player. Dark Souls is only played by hardcore players that enjoy that challenge, imagine if Dark Souls was played by everyone and the difficulty always felt hard to the player, but it was relative to their skill level. like i wish my grandma could say it was hard af and she could also experience the whole game. but the reality of it is that the game is UNPLAYABLE for my grandma. this method would allow grandma to play, while maintaining the design goal of a very challenging game. this honestly sounds like a great idea EA

[King_Lothric]

These companies want to destroy the gaming industry with their greed. Why can't people have a fair balance game? That's a GAME!!!

[MagicBeanz]

Cool, the community needed something new to get outraged about, this should do.

[mezati99]

what the fuck is wrong with these people?

[DFresh]

DICE really needs to go independent because EA is holding them back and sabotaging them.

[DillyDilly]

The time is now people & speak with your wallets & boycott EA & Activision

[antarius]

It’s what tablet games do. Get you to a certain level relatively easy then starting matching you against spenders so your other forced to spend money to keep up or you give up.

[Internal]

I think they take pride in being the shttiest company in the world.

[dunnyone]

Errr yeah - Youtube has been reporting on this for months...

[Ryuujinjakka]

That's why I'm always in the losing team in BF1.

[Markusb33]

So glad I don't support ea or Activision.
Shame I won't get to play anthem but If I buy it in am accepting their practise

[zodiac909]

First their BS Micro transactions in Battlefront, and Need for speed, now this nonsense. It seems like EA is willing to dig their own grave quickly for 2018. It's time for gamers to smarten up, and boycott companies like this, for them to know, we won't settle for garbage like this.

[DarkKaine]

Electronic Arts..the only company where I wish those boings that brought the 2 towers down would hit their headquarters instead. Don't even pirate their shit or talk about em, they aren't worth anyone's time.

[TrueStoryGuy]

OR they're matching people this way to help give the persons who pay money a better score to help justify their purchases. It's in their interest to incenticize people who have already paid money to pay more money, rather than those who haven't paid.