Is MW3 Screwing Us Over? The Dynamic Difficulty Conspiracy

Transcript from video:

We’ve all felt it, haven’t we? That sudden shift in difficulty mid-match. One minute you’re a K/D god, the next you’re seeing a string of hit markers but your targets just shake it off. I got a lot of comments about this in my video about matchmaking in Modern Warfare 3, and it’s called Dynamic Difficulty or Skill Based Damage. It’s easy to brush this stuff off as tin foil hat conspiracy stuff, but could engagement optimized matchmaking actually be something… more sinister? Are they messing with bullet damage, enemy aim, even respawn locations to keep us on that rollercoaster of emotions?

Here Me Out

Ok, I know there’s a good reason to be skeptical about this sort of thing and everyone’s experience in the game is a little different, but based on the comments I got from my video on Engagement Optimized Matchmaking, it seems like most of us are having the same mind-bending scenarios.

If you’re not familiar with Enagement Optimized Matchmaking, or EOMM, there’s a link in the description for my video explaining how it’s different from Skill Based Matchmaking. Instead of creating evenly matched lobbies, the whole point of EOMM is to stack the lobbies so the matches aren’t even. And it does this strategically to make sure you stay in that sweet spot between frustration and victory. It’s a balancing act on a tightrope of dopamine.

For the purpose of this video, I’m making the assumption that EOMM is already in the game, and based on what I’ve read and I can see with my own gameplay, it’s seems incredibly obvious Call of Duty lobbies have been drenched with it for at last the last few years. And EOMM opens the door for all kinds of manipulation. We already know they want you to feel great… and then super frustrated for a while. If they’re willing to do this in matchmaking before the match starts, what would stop them from doing it during a match?

We also know Activision owns patents for changing aim assist and weapon damage on the fly to help sway the outcome of an encounter. EA also owns similar patents and faced a class action lawsuit against them for using Dynamic Difficulty to help sway players into spending money in micro transactions.

Oh, EA. I can’t talk about anything bad in gaming without you trying to steal the show.

But before we get too far ahead of ourselves, let’s make sure we’re looking at this level-headed.

Okay, But…

“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” That’s called Hanlon’s Razor, and they’re words to live by. For a franchise that struggles with basic bugs, it’s seems pretty far fetched that they’d be doing sophisticated calculations in each and every interaction. Especially when the weird stuff happening can probably be explained by bad net code, server ticks, or even player lag.

And while EOMM might open the door for Dynamic Difficulty, it can still work as intended without in-game shenanigans. The existence of one does not prove the existence of the other.

And those Dynamic Difficulty patents that Activision owns? I saw several links to the patents in Reddit posts and older articles, but the links are all broken now because the US Patent and Trademark Office has changed their website in the last few years.

Another sentiment I’ve seen a bit is, what’s the big deal? Is manipulating emotions that bad? If a person chooses to spend money in a game, who’s being hurt? Is it any different than movies or books manipulating our emotions?

Psychological Impact

And to that, I’d say yeah there’s a significant difference in the way books and movies and Dynamic Difficulty in competitive online games manipulate emotions. In storytelling, we choose to take that emotional journey, and we know going in what we’ve signed up for. But in competitive games, things like Dynamic Difficulty and EOMM work behind the scenes without our informed consent. This lack of transparency breeds suspicion and frustration, as players feel their performance is being artificially controlled. And while the primary purpose of storytelling is to entertain, Dynamic Difficulty’s primary purpose is to keep players engaged longer, even if it undermines the competitive integrity of the game.

This manipulation, real or imagined, has real consequences. It breeds paranoia, distrust, and even a sense of powerlessness. We become lab rats in Activision’s grand experiment, our emotions carefully monitored and tweaked to keep us playing. It’s a slippery slope, one that raises serious questions about the ethics involved.

You know what isn’t ethically questionable? Hitting those Like and Subscribe buttons, because I cover a lot more than just Call of Duty and I promise it doesn’t even require in-game currency. And speaking of currency…

Spender’s Boost

While I wasn’t able to locate the Dynamic Difficulty patents, I was able to find Activision’s patent for matching skilled players who spend money in the shop with unskilled players that don’t spend money. There’s a link to that in description, too, as well as a link to a video from YongYea that explains it all.

But here’s an excerpt from the patent: “the microtransaction engine 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 that article by clearly stating “This was an exploratory patent filed in 2015 by an R&D team working independently from our game studios. It has not been implemented in-game.” Companies file patents all the time, and that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s in use. It’s worth noting here, I’ve seen no such official statement denying the use of EOMM or Dynamic Difficulty, for that matter.

Their Lips Are Sealed

If you missed it, there was a Reddit AMA that went off the rails when all anyone wanted to talk about was the horrific matchmaking in Modern Warfare 3. It was pretty hilarious, but immediately after Activision was like yeah we’ll talk about it… eventually… after we’ve gotten our story straight. I mean look, there’s no easy way to say “hey we’ve been predetermining your playing experience in an effort to get you spend a little more money in the shop.”

They did say they would share some information after the Season 1 launch because they needed time because, and I quote, “Talking about this topic in detail can be hard, and we haven’t spent the time to pull together all of our work to share with you our insights and improvements over the many years.”

(Disappointment face to camera) I’m just gonna say that’s highly suspicious PR talk, right there.

Final Thoughts

Look, you’ll have to draw your own conclusions because I can’t say for certain one way or the other. But based on all the possibilities, the company’s track record, and the fact that Activision isn’t even comfortable talking about it, I think Dynamic Difficulty is actually plausible. And given how focused Activision is on pushing players to the shop, why wouldn’t they use the tools and techniques at their disposal to do just that? What line would it cross that they haven’t already danced right over?

Maybe I’m wrong? Maybe we like any explanation that doesn’t involve us sucking? But it really does seem to run deeper than that. The evidence is mostly circumstantial, but the suspicions linger like smoke after a grenade. The next time you go on a run or get that clutch kill, just think: who’s the real winner here? Is it you, the manipulated gamer, or the invisible puppeteer pulling the strings?

Thanks for watching, and shoutout to my son for sending me some of his footage as well.