Couldn’t someone patent the idea of “loot boxes”, so you’d need to find a way to get around the patent? As for microtransactions, they could have probably done something that would have made it inconvenient for other developers to implement… Something to do with the menus–say, something like cosmetics couldn’t be purchased through menus in-game…nah, still too vague. I’m sure if they had the foresight they could have found a way to do something with it to inconvenience other devs.
Though I do think the term and system of loot crates could have been patented. You’d have to have like, loot spheres or something.
I remember that Crazy Taxi patented driving games where you have an arrow up top and have physics on civilians. That’s why physics in open world driving games was so trash for years.
i know this is the US forum, but in the EU myself (cuz EU forum ded) so a bit more closer to the issue personally, but loot boxes specifically dont need to be patented to be banned by laws.
Belgium started lighting the game industry on fire not that long ago, by starting to attempt to ban lootboxes, due to games like “Star Wars Battlefront II” having characters locked behind them. After which other games were investigated too, starting heavy debate, where some companies claimed their stuff were “surprise mechanics” not “loot boxes”.
Countries dont need to have a patent for a law to ban something like loot boxes, as its a predatory idea, but laws are different and more wide-encompassing than patents, but even that was ahead of its time, most stuff has yet to catch up, it needs to SERIOUSLY rock the boat so to say, for people out of the loop to learn of it and ban it.
You really trying hard to believe in Blizzard being protective of consumers here huh?
Even if that specific one cant be applied to Hearthstone specifically, it still belongs to ActiBlizz, and has had activity after said date as mentioned earlier, which shows they do still care about it, and as they said, they hadnt used it YET at the time.
But beyond all that, just because they dont file a patent, doesnt mean they wont use a practice in their game. Especially so if filing a patent is gonna cost them more in PR than they would earn by just not, and letting others use it.
Or heck, just use a modified version of their own patent, cuz uknow, its their patent.
Odd, was writing a longer reply but it got sent halfway while I was grabbing a link from another thread for some reason, regardless Part2 I guess;
The entire point of mentioning the patent here in the first place, was in context of the convo, not in a vacuum. And I seriously dont want you of all people, who quoted the article that thing is from, while telling me I was needing to read up on my sources, while you didnt;
because you had someone ALREADY fact check you on this;
“While aspects of the invention may be described herein with reference to various game levels or modes, characters, roles, game items, etc. associated with a First-Person-Shooter (FPS) game, it should be appreciated that any such examples are for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to be limiting. The matchmaking system and method described in detail herein may be used in any genre of multiplayer video game, without limitation”
Bobafett is ridiculous and doesn’t understand that when a patent says “may be used in any genre of multiplayer video game, without limitation,” that’s bull crap lawyer speak for “I reserve the right to sue anyone who uses anything even remotely like this”
Again you are missing the point, you told me to go read the patent, and I did, yet here you are moving the goalpost as if reality allows that. It doesnt.
Its not Bobafett coming up with this, they were quoting the patent, which you can go read up yourself, but you wont, hence why you keep on repeating this error.
You keep telling people to go read the patent because we dont know what we are talking about, yet clearly, you are the only one who doesnt know what they are talking about, as we are quoting the patent, and you are disagreeing as if its an opinion we are mentioning lol.
They were quoting it out of context. Like I said, the guy is ridiculous. When Blizzard says something that he doesn’t want to believe, they’re a lying evil corporation, and when Blizzard says something that he wants to believe, it is gospel and how dare you doubt it
But really, this has nothing to do with my previous point. When I said that you didn’t read the patent — and you still haven’t — I wasn’t talking about the first person shooter thing.
Interesting. Where is the part that says Ranked HS does not apply?
Though, I’m with you. Just because it says that doesn’t mean they won’t just implement it anyways, but with a different system.
That’s his MO. He just wants “wins” on technicalities or has no common sense, while others are discussing things they see as an issue, not to “win” something. There’s quite a few like his kind on here. See: Neon Ghost.
Again, as you missed the point; The patent was brought up to showcase the fact ActiBlizz has had interest enough in that concept/idea to patent it.
And even as shown on the patent, its had activity past the date of the 2017 articles published (interview where they claimed not having used it yet).
People dont need to patent something to use the concept, but to go to this extent, that was the point of showing it - in context of what was mentioned before, in the convo I had with Moondance.
How can you even patent a system that you don’t already have drawn up? They literally have to basically have it already ready to go, and that was years ago, yeah?
Yeah I wasnt saying conclusive evidence of anything, as you would get if you bothered reading anything else than the patent mention xD xD xD
None of us can know for sure, I was just saying I dont blame players for thinking its “target-rigged” with a specific deck, when patents/IDEAS like that exists in ActiBlizz corpo brain
I don’t think motive should be a concept in our legal system at all. I care about what they do, not what they think. I consider your evidence worthless because it’s evidence of motive.
Why? Because the answer is yes before you even present the evidence. Everyone everywhere has motive to cheat if they can get away with it. Absolutely everyone. This doesn’t mean that everyone cheats. You need to demonstrate that they actually acted on that motive. Which again, everyone has.
Either prove the game is rigged by pointing to evidence in the outcomes, or do not.
I don’t know if I agree in total with your thread.
I have hit Legend, in both formats, at least twelve times.
Once you have done it , the feat quickly loses it’s appeal, as you are at the mercy of the matching and draw system for wins.
And I don’t mind saying:
Whether fair or not, the matching system feels terrible.
I have posted HSR games here showing unexplained variances in matching percentages over 100 games with three different mage decks, all at Diamond 5, on more than one occasion. I got crickets.
Who cares if it averages out over 1000,s of games if it feels and looks manipulated at 100?