Video game publisher Activision seems keen on trapping gamers in a matrix where reality is replaced with a perfectly curated experience meant to keep the user happy for as long as possible.
The Call of Duty franchise by developer Treyarch under parent company Activision boasts over 50 games ranging from World War I to futuristic warfare titles.
With recent games carrying budgets of anywhere between $450-$700 million, Activision is focused on constantly improving its games, inch by inch.
The developer is actively monitoring its users, leveraging users’ computing power, and creating a system of NPCs that are indistinguishable from humans in order to have the customer use the product longer and purchase more items.
These advancements in user experience may come at an ethical cost, however.
Much of the company’s direction, in a technological sense, can be found through analysis of its patents, and as gamers become increasingly aware of these documents, questions continue to pop up as to how much of their experiences with Call of Duty have been authentic.
In 2017, critics pointed to a patent titled, “System and method for driving microtransactions in multiplayer video games.”
With the title being a dead giveaway, gamers were not happy to find out that Activision was placing users in matches specifically designed to influence them to spend more money.
The patent description included the following:
“A system and method is provided that drives microtransactions in multiplayer video games. The system may include a microtransaction to arrange matches to influence game-related purchases. For instance, the system may match a more expert/marquee player with a junior player to encourage the junior player to make game-related purchases of items possessed/used by the marquee player. A junior player may wish to emulate the marquee player by obtaining weapons or other items used by the marquee player.”
Activision responded to criticisms by simply claiming it was “an exploratory patent filed in 2015 by an R&D team working independently” from its game studios. “It has not been implemented in-game,” the company added.
In 2020, players in multiple forums complained that Activision was changing player attributes in real time based on their skill to make individual interactions with other players more competitive. For example, if a better player interacted with a lesser-skilled player, the better player’s accuracy, hit box, aim assist, player health, and damage dealt would be altered to give the lesser-skilled player a better chance.
However, the patents that these claims were linked to no longer appear to be accessible.
Happy gamer, happy developer
To start 2025, Activision is being accused of taking its product in an incredibly eerie direction that includes face scans and fake players.
A YouTuber named PrimePete took a deep dive into some of Activision’s lesser-known patents that expose strange paths the company is taking with its technology.
After pointing to a researcher who seemingly proved Call of Duty: Black Ops was running programs that accessed the user’s camera, the YouTuber discovered an Activision patent that focused on taking two-dimensional facial images in order to generate a three-dimensional image.
An image in the patent describes a video game streamer’s face where the “expressions/reactions and movements” are tracked in real time. Simply put, images of a user’s face are constantly taken to be able to create a 3D model of his face and track his expressions in relation to events that are happening in the game.
In the patent that pushed microtransactions, player satisfaction is mentioned as a factor by which Activision determines if the gamer is enjoying his or her experience.
This “player engagement factor” is calculated in part by a player’s “level of focus,” which is determined, according to the patent, “from camera peripherals, etc., where greater engagement may indicate greater satisfaction.”
Additionally, “biometric factor[s]” are measured, such as “facial expressions, pulse, body language, sweat, etc.”
Return asked Activision if it is accessing user cameras, if it has permission to do so, and if it is accessing user cameras in order to measure facial expressions, body language, or even sweat, as it relates to this patent (US20160005270A1).
Activision did not respond.
Playing in the matrix
Another patent from Activision that hasn’t garnered media attention is titled, “System and method for transparently styling non-player characters in a multiplayer video game.”
This patent specifically describes styling NPCs so that it is “difficult to distinguish between human players and computer-controlled NPCs.”
The NPCs “may be styled to resemble humans” in both their player profiles and their gameplay actions in such a way that players “may not recognize NPCs as non-human, computer-controlled players.”
This would be coupled with limiting the information from player profiles to make it harder to discern if a user is human or computer.
In layman’s terms, in order to tailor a favorable experience for the user, Activision would implement NPCs that appear to be human while also hiding profile information that would make it easier to tell that they are NPCs.
Activision knows how important skill-based matchmaking is, and it has openly tested user experience outcomes with and without matching players based on skill level.
When it doesn’t match players of similar skills, Activision claims more players quit and don’t come back.
Specifically curating matches to a user’s skill level using NPCs, without the player realizing it, could result in a significant increase in user retention.
Activision was asked in reference to this patent (US10668381B2) if it intended to have players matched against NPCs that they may not realize aren’t human players and if there would be a scenario where a player would only be playing against NPCs in a multiplayer match.
Activision did not respond.
Using your PC against you
Rounding out the series of patents that are sure to disturb is, “Methods and systems for continuing to execute a simulation after processing resources go offline.”
This patent outlines how an “end user device” can be used to participate in a simulated NPC gameplay session.
An end user device is defined by Law Insider as “any individual computer or mobile device.”
Activision patented a system that identifies end user devices that are still connected to its system but are idle or in a standby state and then uses its customer’s computer to participate in a simulation.
“An end user device may be available to participate when it has sufficient computing capacity, such as when in an idle or standby state,” the patent said. “As such, the system may leverage spare computing capacity of networked end user devices to execute NPCs at networked end user devices during a simulation.”
The reason provided was to recreate real-world conditions that affect gameplay, like connection quality and device capabilities.
If this is the case, Activision would be using gamers’ available computer power to run simulations for the company’s benefit.
Return asked Activision about the patent (US11896905B2) and whether or not the company is using its customers’ computing power to execute a simulation or conduct any other activities/run any programs the user typically wouldn’t expect.
The company was also asked where in the terms and conditions gamers agreed to such usage of the end user device.
Activision did not respond.
All of the cited patents are still listed as “active” and have an expiry date no earlier than the end of 2034, with the patent related to leveraging user end devices approved in just February 2024.
It would be reasonable to conclude from all of this information that Activision is working against its own customers.
The summation of all the expressed and intended use of these patents would be that the developer is actively monitoring its users, leveraging users’ computing power, and creating a system of NPCs that are indistinguishable from humans in order to have the customer use the product longer and purchase more items.
The result on the surface would be a happy gamer who is great at a game that he plays a lot and who occasionally makes a purchase on the platform.
The grim reality is actually of a gamer who plays in an artificial environment in order to have the extraction of his income and time optimized, while his own computer is used to determine how that can be best accomplished.
Tech’, Activision, Call of duty, Digital surveillance, Online privacy, Npcs, Gaming, Treyarch, Tech
