EA Wants to RUIN Matchmaking?

Game News: EA Wants to RUIN Matchmaking?

Another huge publisher has filed a patent to mess with matchmaking in order to get you to spend more money! This time, it's EA, and they want to unbalance matchmaking so that you feel more engaged than ever before. That sounds fun, right?

Binge Mode

More Game News

See All Game News Videos

Other Videos You'll Like

Comments (6)

  • CerevisiaMagus FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    1 week ago

    See the only thing is and I could be completely wrong and feel free to correct me if I am but hasn't wargaming the company behind the "free" to play world of tanks been doing the EOMM for a while

  • andreas254 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    1 week ago

    EA is the devil...

  • RiverRunning

    1 week ago

    If publishers were more open about these things then a lot of people might be happy with the situation rather than bringing hurt on their asses...


    Here's an idea, completely free for us (i.e. in the public domain); Have different servers for your game where you can pick what type of matchmaking you want... there are already different servers for different areas of the world and different servers (in some games) for ranked and unranked matches, why not different servers based on matchmaking? Ones where you are matched against people the same level as you, others where getting streaks is hard because if you get a losing streak or winning streak you get put with worse or better players and servers where you are matched against players with the same recent results you get in the other servers... i.e. some games will be almost the same as eSport servers and others will be all the five year olds playing Star Wars on their dad's account.


    I know that big business HATES transparency but you're much less likely to piss people off doing things behind their backs when your and their expectations and desires don't match (also this way gamers are more likely to continue playing as they can decide for themselves what they enjoy - being beaten down and finally learning the skills to beat other, better players or playing matches they see as fair and more a test of skill rather than knowing the map inside out or paying to get gud or being guided through an entertaining (if not too challenging) set of matches where players are paired with people who they will either win or lose to.

  • MartyGras2 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    1 week ago

    Sounds similarly to what was talked about last year about Activision.  Filling a patent for manipulate matchmaking in games to encourage gamers to spend more money and estimating fair play. 

  • Elzee98 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold Wizerd

    1 week ago

    Takes off glasses and pinches the bridge of his nose in frustration at the lack of any form of ethics from EA.

  • EricHVela FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold Fiery the Angels rose,..

    1 week ago

    So with DDA... the patent wants to take adaptive difficulty - something that is a player-visible option in some campaign games - and make it a requirement and not tell the players about it at all.


    So with EOMM (which shares four of the five authors of DDA among EOMM's seven authors)... the PvP fights are fixed according to DDA.


    What's best is that these patents are based on data from existing games by EA. Given EA's penchant for just going off and doing things without any consideration to the sentiments of the player beyond monetization, who is to say it's not already implemented for the sake of supporting the theories in these two patents?


    They do say that their theory is supported by data in an EA game for the DDA patent. That sounds an awful lot like they already tested the DDA theory in an EA game. Someone needs to do some digging. It would not surprise me if some people find an EA game with the system already in-place without notifying the player in any way.


    EOMM says that it used simulations to support the data in the theory. Exactly what that means is not certain. A simulation could involve a selection of real players that were manually isolated for the purpose of simulating EOMM algorithmic matches.


    Yet another concern could be the prioritization of those who the algorithm decides are more likely to continue playing with DDA over those who are still less likely to continue playing regardless of DDA. If DDA isn't going to win you over, why would they waste resources on you? Right?


    EA thinks that it knows what's best for everyone and forces its rule upon all.


    "To summarize: It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."


    The author who wrote that (Douglas Adams) was referring to politics but it could easily apply here. It is also a well-known fact what happens when anything political gets mixed up with games: It has, thus far, been bad for gamers.


    Of course like Activision, EA can always say that they patented it but do not implement it. As another The Know article recently stated: Confidence in EA is low.


    PS. I love that the URL for this article is the following:

    theknow.roosterteeth.com/episode/game-news-2018-ea-tries-to-patent-evil