This is just another way of leveraging metrics to satisfy their goals. We've seen it in social media (e.g. Facebook) for quite some time and it's obvious that games have been moving this way. Where's there's money, there's metrics. Now, to be fair, utilizing information such as demographics can be useful in tailoring services. The problems inherent in it are obvious, though. In social media they can more or less filter what you see, and in gaming they can twist it towards monetization. This is of course before government starts to regulate (a.k.a., gets its cut of the influence or money) such things, but effectively these patents touch deeply on privacy issues. It may sound like simple dynamic difficulty but it's really deeper analysis of your gaming idiosyncrasies.
Legally the maintainer of such data (that is, the people running the servers, and make no mistake having more or less all games be online-only is a factor) can throw EULAs and everything else at the consumer to obfuscate their true purposes while maintaining some level of plausible deniability. If everything I've said so far seems pessimistic (beyond the mention of the possibility that tailored services may be superior) it's because these kind of things are almost always exhibit a slippery slope condition until regulation and society catches up.
It's certainly an innovation (hence the patents) in the gaming sense but it follows patterns that have come before it. Users should be very wary, but then again we have people embracing PUBG despite their supposed convictions. Quite simply people naturally embrace idolization, addiction, and faulty ways of thinking, and certainly companies like EA will take advantage of this with the additional benefit of a legal shield. The fact outcry bypassed such methods - a la Battlefront 2, which nevertheless had its apologists up until the end, and even now - is what caused them to pivot, but only after saying gamers were overreacting.
Well then I guess my negativity here is an overreaction. But I don't think so.