Sony Patent Lets Viewers Vote and Pay To Boot Players From Games (wired.com) 104
Sony has been granted a patent that would allow livestream spectators and participants to remove players from a game. "Besides removing unskilled players, the system would allow spectators to pay for the privilege of removing players," reports Kotaku. From the report: In the patent document, Sony outlined a system in which spectators to a livestream can vote to remove a player from an ongoing game. The player would have no veto power over this decision, and they may be reassigned to a different match. The system would display the skill level of the current players and their statistics for the game, such as time played, ratings, and achievements. All of this would take place through "the cloud gaming system," whatever that means.
To avoid audience abuse of this system, a 60% voting threshold needs to be met in order to bench a player from a game. Spectators with a higher skill level will also have their votes counted more heavily in the election. Despite Sony claiming that this system would be beneficial for removing disrespectful "griefers" from matches, the patent also includes the ability for spectators to pay a fixed price or bid for the ability to remove players from a game. The text also mentions a system in which spectators can warn active players to improve their gameplay. Damn.
To avoid audience abuse of this system, a 60% voting threshold needs to be met in order to bench a player from a game. Spectators with a higher skill level will also have their votes counted more heavily in the election. Despite Sony claiming that this system would be beneficial for removing disrespectful "griefers" from matches, the patent also includes the ability for spectators to pay a fixed price or bid for the ability to remove players from a game. The text also mentions a system in which spectators can warn active players to improve their gameplay. Damn.
What a horrible idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
But it might make money, so...
Re:What a horrible idea... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What a horrible idea... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes i wonder if these big tech engineers live in some sort of ideal utopia. I thought the exact same thing when Chrome introduced "notifications"
People working on reputation systems and the like? Yes, they really do not understand how average people work. They still believe a majority is rational.
Re: What a horrible idea... (Score:3)
Two wolves and a sheep voting about what's for dinner? What's irrational about that?
Cruel, surely. Fucked up, maybe. Sucks both for the sheep and for the cleanung lady? Most definitely.
But "(ir)rational" is... a very patient adjective. *shrug*
Re: (Score:2)
People believing that some are sheep and others are wolves are not rational.
Re: What a horrible idea... (Score:2)
I'm not talking about people, I'm talking about sheep and wolves.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not talking about people, I'm talking about sheep and wolves.
Real wolves and sheep are not rational and hence completely irrelevant for reputation systems.
Re: What a horrible idea... (Score:2)
They are not rational, but their behavior is. For a sheep, respectively a wolf.
Re: (Score:2)
Notifications aren't a terrible idea, it was the implementation that caused problems. Specifically allowing sites to request them, rather than displaying an icon somewhere that the user could click to enable them. Similar to how bookmarks work.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the kind of shit executives think of to squeeze money while any serious or competitive gamer instantly cries when they hear ideas like this. You would be better off making digital "members clubs" for different games/servers but again I think the objective here is just to squeeze money.
Just imagine the rich troll, probably from some place like SA or China who fucking boots the whole game for a popular stream.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What a horrible idea... (Score:3)
Re: What a horrible idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Impartial mods are the only way to boot griefers. The only way to have mods that are impartial are for the referee to select them. (ie the platform has to hire them) But they're seeing this as something to monetize, and so spending money would defeat the true purpose of the move.
I'm sure this is a result of a brainstorming session somewhere that asked "how can we make money off the griefers?" and THIS is the best answer they could come up with.
The underlying premise is good, but the entire implementation is just rife for abuse. This is worse than "pay to win", this is "pay to make others LOSE". And they're betting they can make more money off the griefers than they'll lose due to fallout from the inevitable abuse that will result. They're not idiots, they know this is abusable, they've just decided it's worth it.
I don't know about you, but I definitely see "pay to cheat" as more toxic than "pay to win".
Re: What a horrible idea... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would Sony really complain about the money pouring in to make that happen?
Re: (Score:2)
It's just a patent, and actually reminds me a bit of Formula E. In that real life racing competition they have "fan boost", where viewers can vote on who gets power ups like extra energy.
Also players have been effectively doing this for a while anyway. For example, Mario Maker 2 is extremely sensitive to lag and high ping times, so when players end up in a laggy match they often add whoever they think is responsible to their personal blocked account list, meaning they never get matched to that person again.
Re:What a horrible idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you!! This WILL be abused on mass.
what makes me really smile is how shit the patent system is. How can this be patentable, it's not some hardware idea or even complicated software. It is just a bit of software attached to a button and counter etc. Many online games like BF4 have this already built in where you can vote players off for cheating or being dicks.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you!! This WILL be abused on mass.
"en masse" not "on mass"
sincerely,
a pedant
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't toxic at all, and will never be abused. /s
But it might make money, so...
It will make money. Patents aren't free, and Greed doesn't give a shit about morals or ethics.
Never has. Never will.
Prior Art (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If only we could vote out those highly skilled players who think they're the only ones who matter.
This was granted a patent? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This was granted a patent? (Score:2)
Re: This was granted a patent? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: This was granted a patent? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What ground breaking technology created this? Did the code get the patent or the idea? Either way...what?
Yeah, not sure how you technically describe a patent for a bunch of assholes playing Viral to kick the Protagonist of the Minute, out of a game.
But Greed liked the idea, so...patent granted!
Re: (Score:2)
Sony basically patented money-based griefing and bullying.
I always thought that some rich trash celebrities with their own reality show have prior art on that.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Prior predates that by at least 6 years (Quake2), probably 8 (Quake2), and possibly even ?kteams? for Quake1 before those.
Re: (Score:2)
and right as I click submit, I notice the 3->2 typo on the first reference, dammit...
NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a very good player but I just enjoy playing the game.
I've also been streamed on Twitch by simply being matched into the same game as some random streamer; it's not my mistake match-making systems don't always work well.
Will I now be booted off because that streamer is very popular and can easily get a 60% (or probably just as easily 90%) quora?
I also do not want to be continuously trolled by toxic threats telling me I must improve immediately or be banned from the game.
As a non-competitive, non-streaming gamer, I really do not want to be submitted to this.
Perhaps the match-making systems will allow me to not opt-in to this so we can have normal matches and the streamers can have their popularity contests?
Re:NO! (Score:4, Interesting)
Chances are, as a lousy player you're perfect for streamers and will not be kicked out.
Streamers want to be seen "winning" so if you're a high ranking player always killing the star of the show, you'll find yourself kicked off.
Newbie and low skill players are cannon fodder that makes people look good. Add in a little teabagging and you're the perfect target.
Either way, I don't see it as a good idea, so I hope Sony implements it immediately and across every game on the Playstation!
A far better idea would be to simply allow the player and crowd to mute a problematic player. The player can play, but be completely muted. That will take care of the griefing problem since the only thing they can do is play, they can't say anything or type anything into chat. So either they have fun playing and not saying crap, or they leave because no one can hear them. Trolls only work when they can have an audience.
Re: (Score:2)
There's plenty of things you can do while being muted, for example:
Re: (Score:2)
Just remain AFK at spawn without helping your team in any way. (Some games auto kick for AFK, so you might have to move a little from time to time.)
Easy to due, duct-tape a sheet of paper to the underside of your mouse, then hang it out the window. The wind will take care of movement.
Also works to ensure the screen saver doesn't go on at your work PC while you're off doing something useful during some narcissist's presentation about his navel lint.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about the solution as pro
Re: (Score:1)
A patent on ostracising? (Score:3, Informative)
I think there's some prior art there.
Re: (Score:2)
"American Idol" the video game hasn't been released yet...
Re: (Score:2)
Voting people off the island. Online moderation is just the poor man's version.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay... show me "Survivor: The Video Game!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oops.... missed it... as Adam Sessler used to say "A 1... out of 5."
Re: (Score:2)
I think the USPTO adopted "First to File" as opposed to "First to Invent" several years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the USPTO adopted "First to File" as opposed to "First to Invent" several years ago.
I think Edison and Bell used this tendency so a lot more than "several" years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Some misconceptions among Slashdot users still haven't gone away after a decade.
The switch to "first inventor to file" in the America Invents Act of 2011 made no material change to the novelty requirement of United States patent law. Published prior art can still disqualify an invention from patentability. The change affected a much less common case, that of two inventors' pending patent applications for materially the same invention.
Re: (Score:2)
Reality gaming? (Score:2)
Let's take the worst concept of the reality TV popularity contest and bring it to gaming! No doubt this will make a lot of money because that's how f-ed up the world is these days.
Multiple Facepalms. (Score:2)
This entire system is inherently unfair, and isn't just rife for abuse, it's built for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Please don't pretend you're surprised by this.
The only thing I can see here is that at EA they're throwing hissy fits that they didn't get the idea first.
gaming. it did pass verily (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yep. With the prices of video cards and the pollution of cheaters and trolls in online games, 2021 is the year gaming died and whatever you want to call this is born.
Re: (Score:2)
2021 is the year online multiplayer gaming died. Single player still is a blast, as is playing MP games with your buddies.
Re: (Score:1)
Single player still is a blast, as is playing MP games with your buddies.
I acknowledge the former. The latter would require stay-at-home orders during this pandemic to end. Has that happened throughout countries in the video game market?
Re: (Score:2)
You have heard about VPNs, right?
Here's the big thing that will blow your mind: You don't have to buy one from one of those offering them, you can actually roll your own, host your own and make it so that it looks to the game like you're all sitting in the same room. Ain't technology amazing?
Rich Bully (Score:2)
What about if you could counter the kick by paying more money? A wealthy troll's dream!
Who gets the money? (Score:2)
Does the booted party get the collected kick-out money? That would allow crap players an income stream and potential for a lot of creative abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice! I so wish I hadn't spent my mod points yesterday! :(
Re: (Score:2)
Just start a twitch stream labeled "laugh about the idiot" and have people pay to watch you suck.
I betcha there's plenty of people out there who want to see people be utter garbage. For reference, see afternoon TV "reality" shows.
Some players can't "get good" (Score:5, Insightful)
Revenue cessation and ADA liability exposure (Score:2)
and are already paying a monthly subscription to play that game online.
Widespread kicks for low skill against subscribers with motor disabilities would induce subscribers with motor disabilities to abandon the PlayStation platform. This would cause SIE to stop receiving revenue from these subscribers across both online gaming subscriptions and purchases of new games. It might also cause SIE to have to pay lawyers to defend why online gaming is not considered a "public accommodation" pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act,* as well as to pay out damages should SIE's la
Use of this patent admits garbage matching (Score:3)
Problems with players of unmatched skill in games are caused by shitty player matching. By using this patent in a game the developer would be admitting that their multiplayer matching is shit.
Re: (Score:2)
AT least they'd be the first to be honest about it. Matchmaking in a lot of multiplayer games out there is utter garbage.
Most of this in turn is due to them only considering statistics like win/loss and KDR, both of which are very poor metrics when it comes to gauging player quality. When I win most of my multiplayer games, this essentially just means that my team was better than the other one. Why was that the case? Because I was good? Because I happened to play with a lot of my friends with whom I am able
Fix the Match Making (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Where's the money in that?
No boycotts (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't boycott this on principle. I boycott it because it's shit.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, whatever. Take the label, put it on the pile back there, I'll ignore it later. There should still be some room between fascist and commie, just throw it somewhere you like.
Seriously, why is everyone so obsessed about what some random bozo on the internet thinks about them?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, why is everyone so obsessed about what some random bozo on the internet thinks about them?
Throughout most of history it mattered very much what all people you interacted with thought of you, and we haven't caught up to the present.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but these people had some serious impact on you, or at the very least had the potential to have some serious impact on you. Some random yahoo on the internet can as well take his opinion and stick it where the sun wouldn't even want to shine if you paid it.
There are very, very few people whose opinion about me actually matters. And fortunately, all of them are sane.
Re: (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody get security on the line, there's someone talking about our secret R&D stuff that's not patented yet.
Re: (Score:2)
You can bet that anti-poors point defense has been considered by many. In the future, an automated cannon will simply eliminate anyone not driving an expensive enough vehicle through the enclaves of the wealthy.
Well, at least it's patented (Score:2)
Which could mean that nobody else will taint their games because they'd have to pay to ruin them now.
I'm torn... (Score:2)
On the one hand, it's a dumb patent. Voting to kick a player out of a game has existed probably within a couple of weeks of the first time mankind played anything resembling a team sport. Online games since near the inception have had vote to kick, even people in spectating mode, which would seem to be exactly the Twitch case, just in-engine. The only novelty is "do what people can already do, but pay to do so".
On the other hand, if it discourages competitors from implementing such a scheme for fear of in
Not all patents get implemented (Score:2)
Big companies like Sony and Apple file patents all the time for crazy ideas they have that don't always get implemented, in case they might want to implement them. Let's hope that Sony sees the light here of how terrible of an idea this is and doesn't actually go forward and implement it.
Pay to Bully (Score:2)
Next up on the PS5 (Score:2)
Gentrification of video games, now, too? (Score:2)
GEE, I wonder... (Score:2)
Hunger Games much? (Score:2)
It seems the devs watched or read Hunger Games and decided it would be a good idea to let the viewing public be patrons to players they like by assisting them. Giving non-playing haters power to influence a game can only end in some of the legitimate best leaving the game.
Huh... (Score:2)
Just checked my Calendar and it's still not April 1, nowhere near it
Blizzard Prior Art? (Score:2)
I was booted a few times from World of Warcraft dungeons for being a shitty healer. If I remember right, that was an in-group vote with no say on my part.
No prior art because. (Score:2)
Many game servers have vote kicking disable simply for the reason it gets abused, now you will have people with money and high skill kicking out lower class players or worse abusing their 'upper' class status.
How long before flash spectator mobs rove the gaming servers voting to kick random players? Or worse targeting players they don't like?
What can possibly go wrong?
Love this idea (Score:1)
It'll be abused to kick winning players (Score:1)
I'll add a note to my calendar (Score:2)
So I can tell Sony "I told you so" when people get pissed that women and trans gamers are being targeted by a mob of incels bent on sucking the fun out of everything they touch.
I do I hope I'm wrong because I feel like such a damn cynic. Maybe the community has changed since I was last involved. *shrug*
Not a new idea! (Score:1)
Just like cancel culture! (Score:2)
Toxic incentives (Score:2)
To hell with those of us who paid to play the game (Score:2)
Now, not only can I not buy a single player game anymore because nobody makes them, but I can get yeeted out of the game I paid money to be able to play because I've not had a chance to git gud (because every time I play, I get yeeted for not yet being good.)
The day Sony does this on one game on their platform is the day my PS5 becomes a display item and it's Xbox from then until forever.
Finally, a new way for the rich to bully people (Score:1)
Voting to kick toxic players out isn't new. It also doesn't work very well when there's enough timid, passive players who secretly admire the toxic ones while also trying to stay on their good side.
In mostly toxic playerbases, who is most likely to be kicked out?
According to Sony, it's bullies and people who just refuse to become "high-skilled". Or who somehow aren't skilled at the game when they start?
Who is actually going to be kicked? Women, minorities, players who dare to win against high-profile stream