Tag Sports

Matchmaking Is Coming Under Fire in Gaming…

Sean Alexander

This was something I have mentioned in passing but recent papers from EA (Surprise…) have revealed that money is likely to determine our online gaming…

activision

A few months ago Activision revealed a patent to influence matchmaking based on win/loss ratios and gear that would interest you from lootboxes.

Basically all this patent does is match you with people with gear you would desire, someone usually more capable with better gear than you, so that you lose. Then you would be presented the gear in lootboxes via micro transactions.

Loot based matchmaking, patented by Activision, but not wanting to be outdone in that insidious manner, EA steps up.

untitled
So first we should discuss dynamic difficulty. This is common in older games and the immediate thoughts for me are Spyro 3, and the Crash Bandicoot games.

Dynamic difficulty is an excellent idea in single player. The idea is that if you fail repeatedly in a spot, you get an extra hit point, checkpoints, or in the case of Spyro 3, requirements for challenges and even AI gets toned down to accommodate people having trouble. This is done in real-time, as you play the game.

Personally? I love dynamic difficulty. It prevents player frustration and being stuck in what would feel like an endless loop. But applied to multiplayer…let’s think about that.

fifa-switch-announcement

So EA wrote two papers, neither are terribly exciting or enjoyable to consider.

One advises that the concept of “fair matchmaking” doesn’t hold up, i.e. paired with players of similar rank, based on the assumption it’s fair. They argue this isn’t optimal for engagement…and in some loose respects I could maybe see it?

But the point is you don’t want to pair a pro player with a new guy with lesser gear. That’s simply unfair. They argue though…that they “prove” as they say:

We prove that equal-skill based matchmaking is a special case of EOMM (Engagement Optimised Matchmaking) on a highly simplified assumption that rarely holds in reality”

Source

So the key word is the engagement. Engagement equals constant play, and as sneakily referenced in papers by EA available at the source: Spending.

Yep. Money plays a part again. So what is their logic here?

Free-Overwatch-Loot-Boxes

Simple. Good feeling chemicals in your brain. Get matched for a few bad rounds with players you can’t possibly beat? The game then pairs you with players you will trounce. You will feel good about the comeback and eventual streak, before being knocked back down again. When the matchmaking lets you win, you are acting as the “Bowling Ball” to the “Pins” of less skilled players. Then those “Pins” get restacked as the “Bowling Ball” and the cycle continues.

A continuous cycle of loss a few, then be allowed a win-streak. Manipulating the outcome of your games by weighting heavily in or against your favour, with the hope the chemicals in your brain form an almost gambling like addiction to the bursts of success. Just like losing at a slot machine and suddenly winning. A burst of that good feeling, and it will maintain a player base.

The logic there is somewhat solid. But of course the word spending comes up. So where does that fit in? Give you a little nudge towards lootboxes of course.

Picture the scenario: You lose a few matches, get some lootboxes for free, start winning, and your brain would associate the two. Just a little nudge.

This adds to dynamic difficulty in that yes, if you lose a lot, you’ll get a leg up. Win a lot, the game just got harder. Not good in multiplayer when the matchmaking decides what role you get.

battlefront-2-star-cards

 

There isn’t much you can really add to this. As opposed to Activision proposing a system based on your gear and using the “Pin and Ball” effect as I am now calling it, to basically get you enticed into certain lootboxes and chances of getting equal gear, EA is opting to psychologically make you feel good and bad routinely in a form of dynamic difficulty, by matching you with players you will beat with ease, or be beaten by with ease, to keep you playing and spending more.

That’s horrible to think about.

Worse still, we wouldn’t even know it’s happening. We can’t see the backend determining who we are matched with. We would just assume we won some and lost some.

If 2017 was the year of the lootbox, 2018 will be the year of the messed-up matchmaking. Apparently the past 15 years of online play wasn’t good enough to EA.

 

If you enjoyed this article, please leave a like, comment and do all the usual on social media, and until next time: Happy Gaming!

Can Multiplayer Focused Games Have Sequels?

Sean Alexander

The reaction to Splatoon 2 not being “new enough” makes us wonder…can these multiplayer focused games really get sequels?

 

So this is a strange topic. Multiplayer focused games, be it MMOs, fighting games, MOBAs, so on and so forth, build communities around themselves competitively, primarily from the mechanics being engaging and enjoyable to play.

In some franchises, such as first person shooters like Call of Duty, the frequent sequels don’t impact the game much. But for genres that exist with single entries for years at a time, a sequel is a big shake up.  Something like Super Smash Bros. for instance, only gets a new entry every few years. But with it comes a well documented problem: Change.

So within fighting games especially, mechanical changes are hot topics. To this day, there are known showings of events where Smash 4 is played, only for the crowd to demand Melee immediately after due to “Superiority”. Brawl is almost reviled by the community for its mechanics. The change was seen as a bad thing – Too far from Melee, is a bad game for those communities.

So jump ahead to Splatoon. A game that absolutely lives on its mechanics. But the sequel released 2 years later, most likely to bolster the console it was on early in its life, was met with near universal complaints that it “Isn’t new enough”. But the thing is, how much could they change? Too much, it falls into the Brawl trap. Too little, and this complaint arises. With Splatoon, a game so focused on it’s mechanics to stand out, if too much is changed…is it even the same game?

overwatch-share-3d5a268515283007bdf3452e877adac466d579f4b44abbd05aa0a98aba582eeaebc4541f1154e57ec5a43693345bebda953381a7b75b58adbd29d3f3e

With other games like this, such as League of Legends, or Overwatch, try to consider a sequel. How much would they actually be able to evolve the gameplay, while keeping it the same game, before hitting the Brawl problem? These games, like Splatoon, live on expansions, some paid and some free.

But then we hit another issue – World of Warcraft is getting expansions-less servers! A basic experience is being touted as a good thing, in the face of how much the game has evolved and changed.

Screen-Shot-2017-11-03-at-12.30.23-PM

This is a delicate balance – Multiplayer focused games really can get sequels, but the balance between keeping it similar enough for the community while also doing enough to make it new…is difficult. Who knows, maybe Splatoon 3 will be a big hit and change a lot. Maybe an issue with Splatoon 2 was how quick it arrived in stores?

 

All I know is it will be very interesting to see how other game in the field evolve – if sequels ever come on new consoles like the PS5 or if the game just gets re-released.

 

EA Conferences typically put people to sleep.

EA and Nintendo: Is It Time To Give Up?

Sean Alexander

Let’s be honest: Nintendo and EA are two companies that don’t really sit together. There is a long myriad history stemming from Nintendo’s approach to their hardware, and EA’s approach (Oft noted for being less than flattering) approach to software. The two simply don’t mix.

 

With Nintendo Switch, back in January at the reveal in Japan, onto the stage trots EA executive Patrick Söderlund with Bill Trinen to translate to the Japanese crowd: A show of commitment that EA will support the new hybrid platform…with FIFA 18. He really doesn’t look happy to be there does he?

Baby steps then, and after the Wii U rightfully so, but as weeks turned to months and E3 finally rolled around…it became clear: A custom built version of FIFA 18 that runs very well for what it’s worth, missing key things that apparently can only be done in their custom Frostbite engine. Yet the hype maintained, the best portable FIFA ever (Which objectively is the case).

EA kept making the case for the game, saying “we want you to try it, we have faith in it”, but there was no demo. There were no review copies sent out until launch day (Other platforms got both of these a fortnight or so in advance!) and things felt off.

And for some reason, despite Sony having a marketing deal with EA for the game (And most multi-platform games as it happens), Nintendo somehow got away with advertising the game themselves (Frankly, more than EA did!) at their E3 Spotlight, in Nintendo Directs, and on TV in advertisements or social media:

fifa18-switchpage-switchontable-lg

Then it comes out. Some bugs aside, it was exactly as advertised. Except you couldn’t play with friends online, and where the blame rests for this is unclear. On one side, yes the Switch online infrastructure isn’t ready yet. On the other, plenty of other countless games on the system manage that feature. When asked by Eurogamer, EA gives a complete none answer, touting portable play and local multiplayer as a replacement:

FIFA 18 on Switch offers Local Seasons allowing friends to play against each other across two consoles in close proximity to one another, and we encourage those looking to compete online to take advantage of online modes on Switch including FIFA Ultimate Team, Online Seasons, and Online Tournaments.

So the result? Well critically…the game didn’t do so hot, scoring below the Vita version from years past. Fans generally liked the game though, niggles aside, and for what time the developers in Romania (Yes, really) had, it’s a very valiant effort.

Sales wise, the game sold through its allotment of physical copies in the UK and other countries with outlets like Amazon promising more stock. And concurrently the eShop showed FIFA 18 sitting high on the charts for a good few weeks too, riding the digital waves on the new platform.

 

Considering that and the sellout of physical shipments that EA themselves determined and shipped out…it must have met expectations right? Apparently not. EA, in a statement to Wall Street Journal, announced the following:

So, I only have educated guesses here – based on the history of EA – as to why this is. First is that they genuinely produced as many physical copies as they needed to meet expectations and that sold through, with digital filling a big hole in those figures. Or they produced a bare minimum (As again, EA dictates shipments) and threw it out due to obligation. Of course, this is the company that said Dead Space 3 had to sell 5 million units to secure a future, so for all we know their expectations could have been to match Xbox One sales on a smaller install base: They have a history of being unreasonable with expectations.

The other question is what are they waiting for? They put their game out with their assigned shipments. Was it not enough? Do they want to see how other third party titles sell? This is certainly a strange situation but they haven’t actually said what it is they are waiting for specifically, just waiting to see what the demand is for the system in general.

 

But a little history. Who remembers the “Unprecedented Partnership” for Wii U? Gamers got Mass Effect 3, the conclusion to a story focused trilogy, out of that deal. Except no one had a reason to buy it, given that ecosystem had missed the prior two instalments of the story. And there was an at the time newly launched and cheaper Trilogy release on other platforms and in the power of the internet age they knew that was a thing.

So that game didn’t sell: Cue Shock and horror. FIFA came and went, becoming (And not in a sarcastic way, a quite literal way) roster updates of existing games, no mechanical or visual adjustments whatsoever, and then EA walked.

eau

What did they do wrong? They supplied the wrong games to the wrong market. If it was the Trilogy release? Probably would have been fine. Not amazing, but fine. The same mistake was taken with Switch.

 

EA is well noted in the industry for being a “Minimal Effort, Maximum Profit” kind of business, like any business wants to be really, so this stance isn’t exactly new. Back in the days of the Dreamcast it is documented EA wanted SEGA to let them have the monopoly on sports titles on the system: This didn’t happen, EA walked. And with the expectations EA frequently has on it’s games? Man, who knows what they thought FIFA 18 would do.

 

This wait and see approach is, unfortunately, damaging. Looping back to the question of Should we just give up on EA?, at this point I want to say no.

Come a year or so of the Switch being on the market I want to see what EA has to say before bringing a decision on them. But I see three possibilities:

 

1 – EA just walks away. This wouldn’t be new, and frankly is most likely depending on if they are looking for profits equal to other platforms rather than something supplementary, and that can also potentially factor in the cost of tweaking games for the system: Does it make sense for them?

2 – EA brings some games, misreads the market again, and walks. This is also very likely, as again, EA and their noted expectations for games would make anyone on any platform nervous.

3 – EA brings games, does them right for the market, and sticks around. This really is the best case scenario: More games for a platform are good for everyone, especially with the heavy hitter franchises being locked squarely under EA. Those are names you won’t get from anyone else.

 

But the reason this question popped into my mind in the first place is that is this the straw that broke the camel’s back? Has EA finally just nailed the coffin shut? After some pretty lacklustre cash ins on DS and Wii, the Wii U and it’s hilariously bad marketing (From both Nintendo in hardware and EA for just throwing whatever and expecting it to sell) and now this.

After leaving the ecosystem behind; promising a single game; stating that single game will be used to judge future support; evading questions about said game and in some ways sliding some missing features under a rug; asking people to try it but mandating they buy in first; and then back peddling on using the game to test the market and instead waiting for “Something else” to judge demand instead, at what point do the consumers just say enough is enough?

 

But in the end, Koei Tecmo said it best:

“We bet big on the Switch as a game changer so we began making games before the Switch’s launch, but many software companies showed reluctance in releasing Switch games before they witnessed the current success.”

Something is going to give, and gamers aren’t ones to forget.