Arbitrating an outcome of a multiplayer game session

• US 10,478,732 B2
• Filed: 12/22/2016
• Issued: 11/19/2019
• Est. Priority Date: 11/07/2016
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC (Microsoft Corporation)
• Original Assignee: Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC (Microsoft Corporation)
• Inventors: Torres, Wisgary F., Brown, Justin David, Siebert, Michael A., Kline, Keith R.
• Primary Examiner(s): McCulloch, Jr., William H
• Application Number:
  US15/388,379
• Publication Number:
  US 20180126282A1
• Time in Patent Office: 1,062 Days
• CPC Class Codes: A63F 13/35 Details of game servers
• CPC Class Codes: A63F 13/46 Computing the game score
• CPC Class Codes: A63F 13/75 Enforcing rules, e.g. detecting foul play or generating lists of cheating players
• CPC Class Codes: A63F 13/798 for assessing skills or for ranking players, e.g. for generating a hall of fame computing the game score A63F13/46
• CPC Class Codes: A63F 2300/558 by assessing the players' skills or ranking
• CPC Class Codes: A63F 2300/5586 for enforcing rights or rules, e.g. to prevent foul play
• CPC Class Codes: A63F 2300/61 Score computation
• CPC Class Codes: A63F 2300/63 for controlling the execution of the game in time
• CPC Class Codes: A63F 2300/638 according to the timing of operation or a time limit

Abstract

An arbitration system is configured to receive, as a set of results data, separate instances of results data from corresponding client computing devices being used to participate in a multiplayer game session. In some examples, an instance of results data comprises input representing an indication or a selection of an identity associated with an outcome of the multiplayer game session. For instance, the input can indicate a participant identity that won the multiplayer game session. In some examples, an instance of results data comprises game data describing the overall activity in a multiplayer game session from a perspective of a player'"'"'s client computing device, the game data indicating a particular participant identity as a winner of the multiplayer game session. The arbitration system is configured to use the set of results data to determine an arbitrated outcome for the multiplayer game session.

Claims

1. An arbitration system comprising:

one or more processing units; and

a computer-readable medium having encoded thereon computer-executable instructions to configure the one or more processing units to;

determine that a third-party gaming system hosting a multiplayer game session is not certified for determining an outcome of the multiplayer game session;

in response to determining that the third-party gaming system is not certified for determining the outcome of the multiplayer game session, receive, as a set of results data, a plurality of instances of results data from a corresponding plurality of computing devices, wherein an individual instance of results data provides an indication of an outcome for an individual identity of a plurality of identities participating in the multiplayer game session;

associate a title of the multiplayer game session with a category of multiplayer games;

determine that a total number of indications for an identity is greater than or equal to a threshold number of indications, wherein the threshold number of indications is determined based at least in part on (i) a total number of the plurality of identities participating in the multiplayer game session and (ii) the category of multiplayer games; and

in response to determining that the total number of indications is greater than or equal to the threshold number of indications,

determine that the set of results data is valid, and

store, in association with the identity and based at least in part on the valid set of results data, data indicating that the identity is an arbitrated winner of the multiplayer game session.

2. The arbitration system of claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions further configure the one or more processing units to, in response to determining that the total number of indications is not greater than or equal to the threshold number of indications, generate a notification indicating that the set of results data is invalid data that is unable to be used to determine the arbitrated winner of the multiplayer game session.

3. The arbitration system of claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions further configure the one or more processing units to:

determine that at least one computing device provides late results data received outside of a predetermined time period; and

ignore the late results data when determining that the set of results data received from the plurality of computing devices indicates the total number of indications for the identity is greater than or equal to the threshold number of indications.

4. The arbitration system of claim 3, wherein the predetermined time period comprises a threshold amount of time after completion of the multiplayer game session.

5. The arbitration system of claim 1, wherein the threshold number of indications increases as a reliability ratio increases, wherein the reliability ratio comprises a total number of reliable indications received from the plurality of computing devices over a total number of identities participating in the multiplayer game session.

6. The arbitration system of claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions further configure the one or more processing units to expose performance data to a plurality of third-party systems via one or more application programming interfaces (APIs).

7. The arbitration system of claim 1, wherein the threshold number of indications is determined based at least in part on a likelihood of a consensus amongst the plurality of identities given the category of the multiplayer games.

8. The arbitration system of claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions further configure the one or more processing units to use the data indicating that the identity is the arbitrated winner of the multiplayer game session to determine a skill rating of the identity.

9. The arbitration system of claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions further configure the one or more processing units to:

provide an opportunity for the plurality of computing devices to send the plurality of instances of results data based, at least in part, on the determination that the third-party gaming system hosting the multiplayer game session is not certified for determining the outcome of the multiplayer game session.

10. The arbitration system of claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions further configure the one or more processing units to:

access trustworthiness data indicating trustworthiness values for identities that provide the plurality of instances of results data; and

weight the indications based at least in part on the trustworthiness values.

11. The arbitration system of claim 10, wherein the computer-executable instructions further configure the one or more processing units to determine a trustworthiness value based at least in part on a results history of a particular identity.

12. The arbitration system of claim 11, wherein the trustworthiness value increases as a number of arbitrated winners correctly indicated by the particular identity increases.

13. A method performed by an arbitration system, comprising:

determining that a third-party gaming system hosting a multiplayer game session is not certified for determining an outcome of the multiplayer game session;

in response to determining that the third-party gaming system is not certified for determining the outcome of the multiplayer game session, receiving, as a set of results data, a plurality of instances of results data from a corresponding plurality of computing devices, wherein an individual instance of results data discretely indicates an indication of an outcome for an individual identity of a plurality of identities participating in the multiplayer game session;

associating a title of the multiplayer game session with a category of multiplayer games;

determining, by one or more processing units, that a total number of indications for an identity is greater than or equal to a threshold number of indications, wherein the threshold number of indications is determined based at least in part on (i) a total number of the plurality of identities participating in the multiplayer game session and (ii) the category of multiplayer games; and

in response to determining that the total number of indications is greater than or equal to the threshold number of indications,

determining that the set of results data is valid, and

storing, in association with the identity and based at least in part on the valid set of results data, data indicating that the identity is an arbitrated winner of the multiplayer game session.

14. The method of claim 13, further comprising:

determining that at least one computing device provides late results data received outside of a predetermined time period; and

ignoring the late results data when determining that the set of results data received from the plurality of computing devices indicates the total number of indications for the identity is greater than or equal to the threshold number of indications.

15. The method of claim 14, wherein the predetermined time period comprises a threshold amount of time after completion of the multiplayer game session.

16. The method of claim 13, further comprising:

accessing trustworthiness data indicating trustworthiness values for identities that provide the plurality of instances of results data; and

weighting the indications based at least in part on the trustworthiness values.

17. The method of claim 16, further comprising determining a trustworthiness value based at least in part on a results history of a particular identity.

18. The method of claim 17, wherein the trustworthiness value increases as a number of arbitrated winners correctly indicated by the particular identity increases.

19. An arbitration system, comprising:

one or more processing units; and

a computer-readable medium having encoded thereon computer-executable instructions to configure the one or more processing units to;

set a threshold number of indications based at least in part on a category of multiplayer games;

determine that a third-party gaming system hosting a multiplayer game session is not certified for determining an outcome of the multiplayer game session;

in response to determining that the third-party gaming system is not certified for determining the outcome of the multiplayer game session, receive, as a set of results data, a plurality of instances of results data from a corresponding plurality of computing devices, wherein an individual instance of results data discretely indicates an indication of an outcome for an individual identity of a plurality of identities participating in the multiplayer game session;

associate a title of the multiplayer game session with the category of multiplayer games;

determine, based at least in part on associating the title of the multiplayer game session with the category of multiplayer games, that a total number of indications for an identity is greater than or equal to the threshold number of indications; and

in response to determining that the total number of indications is greater than or equal to the threshold number of indications,

determine that the set of results data is valid, and

store, in association with the identity and based at least in part on the valid set of results data, data indicating that the identity is associated with an arbitrated outcome of the multiplayer game session.

20. The arbitration system of claim 19, wherein the threshold number of indications is further based at least in part on a total number of the plurality of identities participating in the multiplayer game session.