Originally posted by Aganazer

Originally posted by girlgeek

I'll compare what you said to the instanced model. Keep in mind I am mostly just playing the devil's advocate here and not singling you out for a spanking.

You are, in say EQ2, WoW, EVE, etc.....able to see at least a hundred people on the screen fighting at one time.

Yup you're right.

There are thousands on the server.

Just like the instanced games.

But you can be in a town with a hundred or more people running right around you....you can talk to all of them, you can see them, you can interact with them, you can duel them, trade with them, craft with them, etc, etc. (Okay EVE, right now, is the exception to the "town" thing, because it's a bit different.)

Just like the instanced games. I do all of that in DDO, CrimeCraft, Guild Wars, and Huxley.

These other games are NOT MMOs.  That kind of thing is not possible with those "instanced MMOs" as you're calling them.  I suggest that they are NOT MMOs, they are cooperative play games, much like Neverwinter Nights, say, or Diablo 2 LOD Online. 

The only thing you mentioned that can't be done in an instanced game is to have hundreds of people fighting at once. I don't know about you, but the last time I saw hundreds of people fighting in the same area, I was a little POed about not being able to complete my quests. Its usually followed by a reroll on a different server.

Those games are "cooperative play" games. 

Technically not. The reason is because they have a much stronger focus on PvP. WoW is more of a coop game than any of the ones mentioned here.

You play, essentially, with about 16 people total.  THAT is not "massive" in any way. If the only place you can see more than those 16 people is in a lobby, or basically a graphical chat room with a few NPCs and hubs to pick up quests, but no actual questing, fighting, interaction with more than the few people you're in the instance with....

You can do all of that in the shared areas of the instanced games except for fighting. You can start and finish quests in the towns in Huxley, CrimeCraft, DDO, and Guild Wars.

how does that qualify as an MMO?  Maybe a MOG....multiplayer online game....yes, but NOT a MASSIVELY multiplayer online game.  Do you see what I'm saying?

I think the issue we have here is how the world "massively" is defined, for one.  I think I have a broader idea of what massive is than some people, I guess.....I don't know.

 

Here is a question for you... Does a MMORPG need to have fighting to be called a MMOG? Because the only difference between the lobby in these instanced games and a MMOG (by your definition) is the fighting. Most of the popular MMOG's have instances so its not the mere existance of an instance that breaks the definition. Its something a bit more esoteric.

In the instanced games I can stand around town, interact with 1000's of people, craft with them, do quests, socialize, make friends, dance with them. In DDO I can even fight them in the taverns. Doesn't that qualify it as an instance-heavy MMORPG?

The actual gameplay is what matters. If fighting is the actual gameplay, then it should offer hundreds of people doing it.

No excuse for a twitch based first person shooter online to have instances/room where the action take place (because they are incompetent at doing it without instances/rooms) that calls itself a Massively Multiplayer game at that.

Or it offer the "actual" "core" gameplay massively, or it doesnt deserve the label.

Originally posted by Josher

Originally posted by satojin

Massivly Multiplayer Online....I'd say if the game has over 40 players with a persistant area somewhere (usually the town/lobby for games like Huxley/CC/Global Agenda) then it counts as an MMO. 

 

But theres no persistent area in those games.  There's not 1 hub.  Theres as many copies of that hub as there needs to be.  You have Hub 1-20 and you swap between them at will, like GW, DDO or Phantasy Star Online.  They aren't massive.  40 people?  I can play with 80 people in BF1942=)  Thats not a MMO.  Its just an online game.

The website basically needs to split them up.  Really it doesn't matter.  I know what I'm buying.  But you'll never see me paying a monthly fee for something I already get for free.  Sticking a graphical chatroom on top of COD4 doesn't warrant a monthly fee.  The developers of these FPS hybrids won't be able to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.  They might sell a box, but after that 1st free month, forget about holding onto the majority of them.  Would anyone pay a monthly fee to play GW?  Hell no.

If having zone copies make it not be an MMOG then there goes Aion, Age of Conan, and Champions Online. I guess those aren't MMOG's either.

I bet if we took everyone's narrow ideas of what an MMOG is and combined them all, we'd likely come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as an MMOG.

Originally posted by Josher

Originally posted by satojin

Massivly Multiplayer Online....I'd say if the game has over 40 players with a persistant area somewhere (usually the town/lobby for games like Huxley/CC/Global Agenda) then it counts as an MMO. 

 

But theres no persistent area in those games.  There's not 1 hub.  Theres as many copies of that hub as there needs to be.  You have Hub 1-20 and you swap between them at will, like GW, DDO or Phantasy Star Online.  They aren't massive.  40 people?  I can play with 80 people in BF1942=)  Thats not a MMO.  Its just an online game.

The website basically needs to split them up.  Really it doesn't matter.  I know what I'm buying.  But you'll never see me paying a monthly fee for something I already get for free.  Sticking a graphical chatroom on top of COD4 doesn't warrant a monthly fee.  The developers of these FPS hybrids won't be able to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.  They might sell a box, but after that 1st free month, forget about holding onto the majority of them.  Would anyone pay a monthly fee to play GW?  Hell no.

And how do you know these games have monthly fees? And is there a law preventing companies from charging monthly fees for online games? MILLIONS of people pay for Xbox Live, you know.

Any game can ask a subscription fee.

But they cant use false advertising as a means to get subscribers.

Saying their game is a Massive Multiplayer game is a scam to get more consumers using the popular MMO label.

If our communities and websites correctly and strictly filtered/labeled those games you can bet that they not only wouldnt get the same ammount of attention, but they would actually try harder to actually get their game label sanctioned by actually fulfilling the requisites of the genre to be called an MMO.

Global Agenda is infact a MMORPG it might not be your small fixation of a mmo but the genre is always changing and as long as it has charater advancation among other people online it is a MMORPG.

Originally posted by Interesting

Any game can ask a subscription fee.

 

But they cant use false advertising as a means to get subscribers.

Saying their game is a Massive Multiplayer game is a scam to get more consumers using the popular MMO label.

 

If our communities and websites correctly and strictly filtered/labeled those games you can bet that they not only wouldnt get the same ammount of attention, but they would actually try harder to actually get their game label sanctioned by actually fulfilling the requisites of the genre to be called an MMO.

When you evaluate a game, do you check the feature details, or you just look at the label for a game?

Whatever the game is called, if it has features I like, I will consider.  Labeling Darkfall a MMO does not make it any more attractive, given the pathetic features community and developer.  Many people insist that Diablo 1 & 2 are not MMOs, but millions just love it.  I did enjoy it immensely.

So MMO or not, I would be asking, does it matter?  Why do I care about this aspect, when paramount factor in choosing a game is always this: do I, would I, enjoy playing?

I dont care about it in a personal level.

I care about it in the major scheme of things.

I think about, "how this sh*t being called an MMO is poisoning the industry!"

I thought MMO meant massively multiplayer online?  They all have lots of people (massively) playing together (multiplayer) online.  They're all MMO whether you want to admit it or not.

This has now become a totally stupid argument.  There are people that have obviously not beta tested at least ONE of these games that I know of, that are claiming you can do things in it that you indeed cannot.  There are no "towns" in the game I'm speaking of and it is in no fucking way an MMO, nor an MMORPG.  Of course, the company that MAKES IT isn't even calling it that, just MMORPG.com is calling it that, apparently, since its being given space here on a site that, at least USED to be, reserved for MMOs and fans of MMOs.

If every game that comes out is going to be listed and discussed here, then perhaps the sites name should be changed to Gamespot Version 2.

I'm not going to argue any more with people who can't seem to tell the difference between an MMO that has some instancing, and a completely instanced  first person shooter that is dressed up in RPG type clothing and given a big visual chat room and then passed OFF as an MMO.  Wake up and smell the freaking coffee people.

If this is what children (or others) want to play, that is fine.  They're entitled to their own genre of games....call them MOGFPSs or PWNs or whatever you want to call them, but they are not, and never will be, any kind of MMO until they give people a massive world and map, and allow people to fight with as many other people as they can cram in the zone if they WANT to do so. To make everything instanced....everything....other than the minutia that they have not put in an instance, and limit fighting to 16 people total....is NOT an MMO.  Argue all you like.  Honestly, that is just blind stupidity to believe that.

 I'm really not big on the label thing. Are they fun? Has anyone played them yet?

I almost tried to lobby to get DEMIGOD on this site as an MMO. It really isn't because it doesn't carry the same type of character progression that other games have. I think that is what separates most Co-op RPGs like Sacred  2or \lobby based online games like Warrior Epic from the open-worlders like WoW, AoC and Vanguard.

I know alot of games are touting the MMORPG label to get peoples interest s as a method of marketing. You have to just try the game or talk to a very reliable ginuea pig to find out if the game is worth your time and loot. I've been trying alot of free trials and actually did some house cleaning tonite. I am not going to go into detail but I am glad for the trial and not having to drop some serious loot in order to find out if I liked the game or not.

My advice: Sign up for the beta. Go on the forums, read reviews and ask questions. If the game is not for you, DON'T BUY IT OR PLAY IT! But also, don't be a hater and make posts bashing a game that you never played. It makes people look ignorant.

Play safe.,

Ink

Ok .. I want someone to show me were in the deffinition of MMO that it says "Must be a single large presistent world" to be classified as an mmo..

I  thought MMO meant.. massively multiplayer online..meaning

Massively---  1: forming or consisting of a large mass: a: bulky b: weighty, heavy <massive walls> <a massive volume> c: impressively large or ponderous d: having no regular form but not necessarily lacking crystalline structure <massive sandstone> 2 a: large, solid, or heavy in structure <massive jaw> b: large in scope or degree <the feeling of frustration, of being ineffectual, is massive — David Halberstam> c (1): large in comparison to what is typical <a massive dose of penicillin> (2): being extensive and severe <massive hemorrhage> <massive collapse of a lung> (3): imposing in excellence or grandeur : monumental <massive simplicity>3: having mass <a massive boson>
— mas·sive·ly adverb
— mas·sive·ness noun

Multiplayer ---A multiplayer video game is one which more than one person can play in the same game environment at the same time

Online--- meaning over the interwebs.

Sooo...I only read the discussions on this site.  Been a member for a year or so with different accounts and  I've played many beta's and mmo's and I was gonna post something to fight your post but.... All I have to say is.......OWNED!!!

Pretty much everyone just owned the crap out of you.  All of those three ARE in fact mmo's.  Someone that doesn't believe they are mmo's has no place posting on a site for mmo's.  You obviously don't know mmo's very well...

Originally posted by Fadedbomb

I'm stumped as to how people can actually accept these games as MMOs? There is ZERO real map land in any of these mmo's. It's all instanced arenas that have been mocked up to "LOOK" like an mmo. Hell, even the descrptions for most of these games (primarily Huxley Online) EXPLAIN to the common individual that these games are nothing but DOOM with "mmo elements" like character information saves & stat allocation.

 

...

At the 2009 Game Developer’s Conference, I had the opportunity to sit down with the guys behind the upcoming shooter / MMO, Crime Craft and to get my first look at the game in progress.

...

These common areas are where players can interact with one another, take part in such MMORPG mainstays as banking, in game mail, auction houses, weapon shops, crafting, player housing (gang hideouts), get missions and the like while the real heart of the shoot-em-up style gameplay takes place in online-shooter style instances pitting teams against one another.

...

Thank you,

-Faded

 

Well, well...

Fadedbomb, you have changed haven't you?  (that is a compliment by the way)

I actually agree with you.

I wonder if you remember another game where I met you? 
It' another MMORPG that isn't an MMO IMHO.

Pirates of the Burning Sea

And it follows the same pattern you are talking about here
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/2861975#2861975

"...what we are seeing more and more is what I now call "Graphical Lobby Games"
That is games where the main world' is really nothing more than a graphical lobby where players meet and chat while waiting to go to an instance.
Pirates of the Burning Sea was one such game.
The "travel map" is where you sail around the world and you can see other players (and chat to them) but you cannot interact with them there. For that, you need to go into an instance.
The towns in PotBS are the same (although they are in themselves an instance).
Really, it turns the game into a type of instanced graphical forum.
 

PotBS (Graphical Lobby Game)

Main World (chat only - no trade) = The Main Lobby

Sea Battle instances
 

Towns (chat and trade - no Av Com) = The Secondary Lobbies

Fencing instances (PvP)

Mission instances

The Agency and Stargate Worlds look(ed?) like heading the same way."
 

See also http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/2358581#2358581
(I have been preaching this for a while)

And in support of what Faded is saying I would like to address comments made by a couple of other posters:
To all those who say "so what?" - well okay - if it's a game then it should be listed...where's the Chess forum?
This is MMORPG.com and unless that is properly defined this site could well end up with forums covering every game with any kind of Multiplayer function?  Not that I would mind that personally - but it might get a bit much for some people?

@Imotepp
Anything over 128 players in the same world at the same time.

Then many forums could be MMOs?  MMORPG.com has 137 members and 285 guests on as I type!
- Ah... but they are not graphical...right?
The thing is that they could be made graphical very easily now.
IIRC the Wii has a graphical lobby - as does the new X-Box(??) - and Facebook now has a thing called Farmtown with a marketplace... and that actually looks more like an MMO than a few of the MMOs I have seen in development lately!

@Aganazer
We are not trying to reinvent the English language - but mearly define what games should be lited on this site.
And there are requirements for that listed here
But what Fadedbomb is saying (and many others too) is - is it time to review these requirements?

@Thachsanh et al.
Yes there are quite a few games on this site that have 'snuck in' under the current requirements.
Yes, games are changing - but so is technology.
10 years ago designing a game that allowed more than a handful of people to be online at the same time really was the domain of a professional development house.  Now, anyone can download some pretty damn good engines for free and a very basic MMO (using such an engine) could be put together by schoolkids in their spare time.  Not that I am saying that this is a bad thing - but it does make the possibility that MMORPG.com could soon be hosting forums for "The un-named 133t MMO that Ben and Sp4mmy made after skoolz - LOLZ"!

And to those that say an MMO is defined by charging a subscription?
Where does that leave games like Wizard 101?  Do they have to provide subscription numbers to MMORPG.com?
How about games like Travian, Urbandead and Pardus?  they have a Pay to Play option?  (and FWIW they are more MMORPG than some recent releases too!)

@Interesting
...The importance of labelling something as MMO or MMORPG or MMOFPS lies in PREVENTING COMPANIES FROM MAKING MONEY OUT OF FALSE ADVERTISING, ...If they dont invest, or they arent competent enough to offer the core gameplay in the same world to a massively number of players, they shouldnt be allowed to RIP ALL THE BENEFITS OF LABELLING THEIR GAMES MMOs!!!

This is also where much of my interest in this subject comes up.
I consider MMORPG.com a credible site that gives the listed games an air of credibility.  I want to see that protected.
I would like this site to uphold a standard for that reason.

And with that in mind I would like to do something I very rarely do - call on a Site Rep by name.
STRADDEN.

Stradden,
You and I have discussed this before.  I know we haven't agreed in the past.
But I would really appreciate it if you would review this thread and participate in this discussion.
I don't consider this thread a 'petition' or a 'demand'.  It's a discussion.

Is it time to review the rules that this site uses to define what classes as an MMORPG Game?

If so, what should the new requirements be?

I would really be interested in your input here, both your personal views and your views based on your position in MMORPG.com.

I think this is a discussion we need to have - even if we ultimately agree that things are just fine the way they are?

Oh and Fadedbomb - good thread mate.

Originally posted by Interesting

The importance of labelling something as MMO or MMORPG or MMOFPS lies in PREVENTING COMPANIES FROM MAKING MONEY OUT OF FALSE ADVERTISING, PREVENTING COMPANIES FROM FURTHER DEGRADING THE GENRE.

I personally don't understand this.  If a game company runs their own server where all of the characters/persistent game world is stored then I consider it an MMO game.  I truly do not understand how a company calling their game an MMO when it is really a Multiplayer Online game is a big deal at all. 

How are people going to make money off of false advertising by the genre they classify their game into?

If a game wants to charge a monthly fee the people who try out that game decide if it is worth paying a monthly fee for.  If the consumer does not feel the game warrants a monthly payment they will not subscribe to the game.  It doesn't matter if the game is in the MMO, FPS, Racing, Fighting, Puzzle, Adventure, or Family game genre.

I do care, because years ago online component was free. Nowadays just because the online component has some sort of ilusory-hypocrite fake progression they try to get money out of it, with either subscriptions or pay to win schemes (another reason why the progression component is added at everything) 

I think you are missing a very important feature here.  Global Agenda and Huxley (I can't comment on CrimeCraft, I haven't read anything about that game yet) are games that host their own servers that the players connect to.  All of the character data, world data, etc. is stored on their servers and they have to be running 24/7.  Not to mention that there are common areas for people to meet up before joining an instanced mission.

And as I said in the above response, it is up to each individual player to decide if it is worth their time to pay the company a monthly payment for these services.

Its not that people cant do it, its that they are too lazy to do it, they think they can get away releasing a game with slightly revamped online component and get huge money out of subscriptions and pay to win schemes.

See above.

Originally posted by Dameonk

Originally posted by Interesting

The importance of labelling something as MMO or MMORPG or MMOFPS lies in PREVENTING COMPANIES FROM MAKING MONEY OUT OF FALSE ADVERTISING, PREVENTING COMPANIES FROM FURTHER DEGRADING THE GENRE.

I personally don't understand this.  If a game company runs their own server where all of the characters/persistent game world is stored then I consider it an MMO game.  I truly do not understand how a company calling their game an MMO when it is really a Multiplayer Online game is a big deal at all. 

How are people going to make money off of false advertising by the genre they classify their game into?

If a game wants to charge a monthly fee the people who try out that game decide if it is worth paying a monthly fee for.  If the consumer does not feel the game warrants a monthly payment they will not subscribe to the game.  It doesn't matter if the game is in the MMO, FPS, Racing, Fighting, Puzzle, Adventure, or Family game genre.

I do care, because years ago online component was free. Nowadays just because the online component has some sort of ilusory-hypocrite fake progression they try to get money out of it, with either subscriptions or pay to win schemes (another reason why the progression component is added at everything) 

I think you are missing a very important feature here.  Global Agenda and Huxley (I can't comment on CrimeCraft, I haven't read anything about that game yet) are games that host their own servers that the players connect to.  All of the character data, world data, etc. is stored on their servers and they have to be running 24/7.  Not to mention that there are common areas for people to meet up before joining an instanced mission.

And as I said in the above response, it is up to each individual player to decide if it is worth their time to pay the company a monthly payment for these services.

Its not that people cant do it, its that they are too lazy to do it, they think they can get away releasing a game with slightly revamped online component and get huge money out of subscriptions and pay to win schemes.

See above.

 

All your points (in green) were already adressed by me and others in the previous pages of this thread.

Did you really skipped the part where people say that if those games are MMO, then laughably Diablo series should be too? You clearly didnt read the thread or else you wouldnt repeat what was already adressed...

Since you mentioned Huxley as if implying I dont know what Im talking about you forced me to dig deeper...

I know everything you mentioned about Huxley and more. It has instanced PVE and PVP and whatever you can do and against who you can play is severelly limited. Rooms/Instances are divided by levels. Equipment/Gear follows a severely limited scale of progression, game money and sometimes real money. There isnt any degree of variability in gear. Its a huge threadmill. Everything is made for the sake of balance (people segregated by level in rooms is ridiculous)

This game stinks roombased game all over it. Like Gunz Online and Gunbound type of games characteristics. Those are casual games focused on balance. Huxley's difference is the "graphical lobby" where you can socialize "massively". "Oh, it is massivelly" the dude using the most stupid interpretation ever: strictly gramatically, denying teleological, deontological, historical, sistematical, cultural, sociological interpretations of what the Massive aspect of MMOs really means.

To be massive, we have to go togetherwith our 50 guild members pwn some "aliens" and "noobs" all at the same time jumping and shooting all over the place and yeah, and if Im level 50, I should own all because I spent time and effort to get there, since its a MMO, in a persistent world with progressive character evolution, the point of all that is having power over others, where is that in Huxley? They have items just to say they have, but all items have fixed stats and people who can play in the same rooms due to the fixed level limits of each rooms probably have the same gear, slightly differences, but mainly the same overall power derived from gear, everything limitting the player who spent more time and effort from actually enjoying the MMO aspect of progression, because due the game limitations/design decisions, everyone doesnt progressed comparativelly to one another, everyone is equal. If everyone who spent the same time and effort playing together, having the same gear because they are at the same power curve, it prevents the time and effort equation from MMOs from causing its effect... I can see a bullsh*t advertising game like that from miles away. Huxley deviated from everything that would make it an MMO.

Huxley by my standards is an

INSTANCED MULTIPLAYER ONLINE FIRST PERSON SHOOTER with graphical lobby and some rpg features. Thats what it is! And I dont buy it, noone should be stupid enough to spent money on their cash shop to get the unbalanced gear, its just a money scam, a pay to win scheme. They have PVE just to give an ilusion of MMO while also adding grind (you can bet your ass they will make you grind PVE over and over to "advance" in the content, wich is hypocrital ilusion) to sell more "experience enhancement" (skip the content, reach faster the end game = power in pvp so you can feel l33t) items on cash shop.

Huxley is a huge failure due to non MMO design decisions written all over it, but is also a huge money scam scheme and false advertising game. Whoever read this: dont get fooled, its nowhere near what you know and expect and learned to love by MMO.

Originally posted by Interesting

Any game can ask a subscription fee.

 

But they cant use false advertising as a means to get subscribers.

Saying their game is a Massive Multiplayer game is a scam to get more consumers using the popular MMO label.

 

If our communities and websites correctly and strictly filtered/labeled those games you can bet that they not only wouldnt get the same ammount of attention, but they would actually try harder to actually get their game label sanctioned by actually fulfilling the requisites of the genre to be called an MMO.

LOL .. you sound like MMO is the best label. I have news for you. There are more people playing HALO3 and CoD multiplayer than most MMOs out there except may be WOW.

Plus, no consumer buys a game because it has a MMO label. In fact, labels are pretty much irrelevant.

And anyone who would do that, deserve to be stiffed by bad games. In fact, if people are buynig purely based on the MMO label, a lot WORSE can happen (like playing TR before it is shut down), than trying any of these games.

Soloers have ruined the genre, killing what was fun on the genre: teaming.

Now arcade gamers will see his games become P2P.  There will be not free server, but just one owned by a company, with a graphic lobby, and 3 or 4 "pool servers" that will act as "arenas" for quick fights. 

The reason is clear:  money,... you sell a game like Quake3 once, but you can sell a game like what I describe montly. 

Now..  I have no problem if these FPS games where really massive,  but theres nothing massive in arenas with 64 players. 

Soon... we will be calling massives a games that are less than a serie of arenas (much like WAR or WOW arenas) of 8 vs 8 players.   

I /puke at this. 

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Interesting

Any game can ask a subscription fee.

 

But they cant use false advertising as a means to get subscribers.

Saying their game is a Massive Multiplayer game is a scam to get more consumers using the popular MMO label.

 

If our communities and websites correctly and strictly filtered/labeled those games you can bet that they not only wouldnt get the same ammount of attention, but they would actually try harder to actually get their game label sanctioned by actually fulfilling the requisites of the genre to be called an MMO.

 

LOL .. you sound like MMO is the best label. I have news for you. There are more people playing HALO3 and CoD multiplayer than most MMOs out there except may be WOW.

Plus, no consumer buys a game because it has a MMO label. In fact, labels are pretty much irrelevant.

And anyone who would do that, deserve to be stiffed by bad games. In fact, if people are buynig purely based on the MMO label, a lot WORSE can happen (like playing TR before it is shut down), than trying any of these games.

Me and you can see through it, but do you speak for the masses? I think there are lots of people who need help because they cant see it.

MMO is a very attractive label and it gets even more dangerous when coupled with the "Free to Play" label.

"Check out our New Free to Play MMO!" that sentence is so dangerously evil, hundreds of thousands of people are in trouble and they have no idea that what they are going to jump in is neither free, neither massive, its just a scam.

How many years of gaming you have? You certainly wont fall for that, but do you think everyone thinks like you? I think there are so many potential youngsters consumers nowadays that entered in MMO gaming after MMOs lost its essence and after the beggining of F2P (pay to win model), they have no idea how it was back then.

Originally posted by Quickranger

Sooo...I only read the discussions on this site.  Been a member for a year or so with different accounts and  I've played many beta's and mmo's and I was gonna post something to fight your post but.... All I have to say is.......OWNED!!!

 

Pretty much everyone just owned the crap out of you.  All of those three ARE in fact mmo's.  Someone that doesn't believe they are mmo's has no place posting on a site for mmo's.  You obviously don't know mmo's very well...

And YOU obviously haven't played, like I said in a previous post, at LEAST one of those MMOs, which I have....and it is NOT an MMO.  Nuff said.

If you consider playing with a group of 16 people, including yourself, MASSIVE....I think you're a bit confused.  That is nothing more than a cooperative play game, such as Diablo.  No one ever called Diablo 2 LOD Online an MMO for that VERY reason.  There is nothing "massively multiplayer" about 16 people.  You're never plalying with 100 or more people in the zone you're fighing in......NOT massive.....multiplayer, yes, in a coop game style of play, but MMO??  Nope, not hardly.

Incidentally, I am speaking only of CrimeCrap....I don't know enough about the other games mentioned to make a judgement, but I suggest a lot of people here don't know enough about CrimeCraft to argue my point here, either.  I will only talk about the one game I DO know about, and again.....NOT an MMO.  The company doesn't even call it an MMO, perse, so why it's being called one HERE....I have no idea. THEY call it a persistent world next gen shooter....PWNS, not MMO.

So...while you're telling the OP that he got owned....look in the mirror.