Is there any reason that we are concentrating on conspiracy theories with respect to outcomes of a crystal openings in a game? It is very difficult to prove a negative. How can one prove that Kabam is not using the patents without looking into the actual coding in the game? At the end of the day, unless you are someone who has interest in datalike DNA does, it is better to just play the game as just that, a game and stop with these theories. Personally, I don't care if they use it or not.
Is there any reason that we are concentrating on conspiracy theories with respect to outcomes of a crystal openings in a game? It is very difficult to prove a negative. How can one prove that Kabam is not using the patents without looking into the actual coding in the game? At the end of the day, unless you are someone who has interest in datalike DNA does, it is better to just play the game as just that, a game and stop with these theories. Personally, I don't care if they use it or not.
I generally agree but it bothers me when people dismiss the idea like it’s impossible or crazy. Especially when Kabam has done a number of questionable things in the past like the 12.0 bait and switch. However, you’re right that we’ll probably never have an answer and it doesn’t matter because this is a mobile phone game.
@DNA3000 Since you’re a patent expert you should know that patents are as broad as possible, which leaves a lot of room for interpretation. In addition, they are usually written by lawyers that don’t have expertise in things such as programming a video game. They also are written in a “cover your ass” style that uses legalese to make it hard to understand/interpret. There’s a reason why contract and patent lawsuits can takes months to years to decide the intent of the language. For whatever reason you’ve come to the conclusion that Kabam doesn’t use this patent based on anecdotal evidence and your own interpretations of purposefully confusing text.
You state that, “In other words, if it says they can adjust drop rates based on player actions, they've invented and patented the ability to do that. That's legally false.” I don’t know what you’re basing this statement off of. Kabam have patented and invented this, which is evident by this patent existing. Daniel L. King even references Kabam in his paper Video Game Monetization: A Blueprint for Practical Social Responsibility Measure in the International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. King states:
“Some registered game patents appear to indicate that some game companies employ microtransaction systems that adjust the reward payout so that it is determined largely by player behaviors rather than by random chance. A patent by McClellan et al. (2017) for Kabam refers to ‘mystery boxes’ where the payout is influenced by player statistics, including (but not limited to) how much time or money the player has already spent in the game. Knowledge about the player’s behavior may be exploited, for example, in a scenario where a novice player receives better rewards at the beginning of the game, but then the odds of receiving the desired rewards reduce over time and thereby encourage more persistent play.”
Claims 4-9 clearly states that spending habits and the player’s inventory contents can have an effect on the drop rates. You then state, “Now, how many people believe that Kabam does this? Makes crystals better so people buy more of them? Anyone?”. This statement is anecdotal evidence that’s based on your own experiences. This statement is just as meaningless as @_Sham_ saying he thinks they use this patent based on his personal experience. You would need access to user data to determine if this true or not.
“Doesn't this mean it isn't required to increase the value of the lootbox? No: it refers specifically to ‘high value items.’ You don't have to explicitly tweak the drop odds of high value items to make a lootbox more attractive, and the patent is careful to state that this is not necessary to prevent alternate patents from attempting to interpret this one narrowly.” I’m sorry but this interpretation is such a stretch. How did you reach that conclusion? It’s literally just stating that when a different drop rate is implemented, it can increase your odds of getting a high value item. I agree the last part is to protect themselves but it doesn’t say anywhere in that quote that “ You don't have to explicitly tweak the drop odds of high value items to make a lootbox more attractive”. That’s conjecture based on your interpretation.
“The method of the present invention may also include adjusting distribution probabilities associated with individual awards included in sets of potential awards in a predetermined manner in response to predetermined triggering criteria being met such that, in response to the predetermined triggering criteria being met subsequent to purchase of the first probability item bundle being purchased by the first user, one or both of the first distribution probability and/or the second distribution probability are adjusted in a predetermined manner.” “By way of example, presuming the applicable trigger is met, and presuming that a specific collection of virtual items potentially contains items A, B, C and D. Prior to adjustment, the probabilities of receiving the items might be as follows: A—30%, B—50%, C—2%, and D—75%. In this example, it may be that item C is a highly coveted item and thus the chances for obtaining it are purposely kept low so as to maintain the actual and/or perceived value of the item. If a trigger is met, (e.g. a player purchases the third instance of this collection), the system may adjust probabilities, by way of example, to A—30%, B—50%, C—10%, and D—75%. This adjustment may apply to all three of the purchased collections or only one of the collections (e.g. the last/third purchased collection) as determined by the game operator. In this example, this represents a reward to a player that has purchased multiple of the same collections by giving that person an increased chance of obtaining the desired item.“
Both of these paragraphs clearly contradict what you state to be the intent of this patent. These paragraphs aren’t about making old crystals more desirable but changing the odds based on predetermined “triggers”(spending). This second paragraph makes a crystal clear example where the purchasing of the bundle a 3rd time increases the chances of getting item C from 2% to %10. It has nothing to do with the age of the crystal but rather the number of times the crystal is purchased(the trigger).
Obviously I have no clue whether or not they use this patent. However, I do disagree with how you smugly dismiss the possible use of this patent with such a flimsy, subjective argument. Maybe you need to read the patent a couple more times.
First of all, DNA is not just pulling it out of his hat. He's not nearly as assumptive as I am. He operates on hard evidence. So good luck with that argument. Secondly, that Patent has been brought up ad nauseum on this Forum and the old, and the response has always been the same. From Kabam themselves. Many Patents applied for are not in play. There is no secret weight for pulls. Nothing but the posted Drop Rates are in play, and just like they've said many times, buying more Bundles (Items, whatever) does not increase the Drop Rates themselves. The only thing it does is increase your chances by way of more pulls. As in, more chances at the same rates. You either believe them or you don't. Just like people believe COVID is real, or a government ploy.
Is there any reason that we are concentrating on conspiracy theories with respect to outcomes of a crystal openings in a game? It is very difficult to prove a negative. How can one prove that Kabam is not using the patents without looking into the actual coding in the game? At the end of the day, unless you are someone who has interest in datalike DNA does, it is better to just play the game as just that, a game and stop with these theories. Personally, I don't care if they use it or not.
I generally agree but it bothers me when people dismiss the idea like it’s impossible or crazy. Especially when Kabam has done a number of questionable things in the past like the 12.0 bait and switch. However, you’re right that we’ll probably never have an answer and it doesn’t matter because this is a mobile phone game.
What bait and switch? You mean when they had to change the system because there was literally no content they could design for the future of the game because Champions like SW and Thor were statistically able to cut through it? That wasn't bait and switch. That saved the game. It wouldn't have lasted this long without that change. 3 months before they had to change it, there was a Dr. Strange sale. All of a sudden people assume they were trying to pull the wool over their eyes. Therein lies the problem with these discussions. Suspicion breeds suspicion.
@DNA3000 good work on analyzing the outcome of UAC. Must have taken you a while.
I have done the same in the past with PHC to check drop rates of 4* champs. I opened 1000 and got a drop rate almost exactly as stated. I opened all art the same time so just had to do the math and didn’t make a spreadsheet.
So when it comes to crystals like PHC or UAC or other “low profile crystals” I have no doubt they work fair and is all about rng.
@DNA3000 Since you’re a patent expert you should know that patents are as broad as possible, which leaves a lot of room for interpretation. In addition, they are usually written by lawyers that don’t have expertise in things such as programming a video game. They also are written in a “cover your ass” style that uses legalese to make it hard to understand/interpret. There’s a reason why contract and patent lawsuits can takes months to years to decide the intent of the language. For whatever reason you’ve come to the conclusion that Kabam doesn’t use this patent based on anecdotal evidence and your own interpretations of purposefully confusing text.
Patents are not written to be "as broad as possible." That's google talking. Someone knowledgeable about patents (I'm not a patent attorney, but I used to do work as a patent draftsperson and also assist with patent filings) would tell you that a patent must be specific, because if it is too broad it can run afoul of being challenged by prior art (prior inventions or published information) or more recently because they are too broad to be eligible for patent protection (the "abstract concept" exception).
In the United States (we're talking about US patents here) 35 USC 112 states "The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention." The USPTO clarifies 35USC112 here: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2162.html. Specifically, a patent must describe the invention in sufficient detail that anyone competent in the field can replicate the invention to its best form as conceived by the inventor. If a patent does not do this, it can be challenged as invalid, as it does not describe a true invention or properly disclose it for posterity.
No competent patent attorney advises their client to write their patents in "legalese to make it hard to understand/interpret." And the patents in question are not written in legalese that is hard to understand. They are dense, and written in a style many people would be unfamiliar with, but they are entirely straight forward and unambiguous.
Comments
Secondly, that Patent has been brought up ad nauseum on this Forum and the old, and the response has always been the same. From Kabam themselves. Many Patents applied for are not in play. There is no secret weight for pulls. Nothing but the posted Drop Rates are in play, and just like they've said many times, buying more Bundles (Items, whatever) does not increase the Drop Rates themselves. The only thing it does is increase your chances by way of more pulls. As in, more chances at the same rates.
You either believe them or you don't. Just like people believe COVID is real, or a government ploy.
3 months before they had to change it, there was a Dr. Strange sale. All of a sudden people assume they were trying to pull the wool over their eyes. Therein lies the problem with these discussions. Suspicion breeds suspicion.
I have done the same in the past with PHC to check drop rates of 4* champs. I opened 1000 and got a drop rate almost exactly as stated. I opened all art the same time so just had to do the math and didn’t make a spreadsheet.
So when it comes to crystals like PHC or UAC or other “low profile crystals” I have no doubt they work fair and is all about rng.
In the United States (we're talking about US patents here) 35 USC 112 states "The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention." The USPTO clarifies 35USC112 here: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2162.html. Specifically, a patent must describe the invention in sufficient detail that anyone competent in the field can replicate the invention to its best form as conceived by the inventor. If a patent does not do this, it can be challenged as invalid, as it does not describe a true invention or properly disclose it for posterity.
No competent patent attorney advises their client to write their patents in "legalese to make it hard to understand/interpret." And the patents in question are not written in legalese that is hard to understand. They are dense, and written in a style many people would be unfamiliar with, but they are entirely straight forward and unambiguous.