This is pretty cool news.  I'm in the camp that would love to have a game that is more like older games.  Give me EQ1 with updated graphics and I'm happy.  

This doesn't mean that I'm going to bash all the new games that come out that are much different than what I like.  Actually I see this as a great opportunity for someone to make a game that I would like.  Just one, that's all I want.  If the genre is thriving that means that there is room for one.

Originally posted by ezpz77
Realistic logical thinking people know this. The only people who truly believe the genre is dying or "devolving" or anything like that are over-emotional, angsty, burned out vets. MMORPG.com just happens ot have an extmrely high ratio of burned out vets to regular old MMO players. And boy, those burned out vets are noisy as hell. They're basically MMO hipsters, and we all know hipsters suck.

It's all perspective.  I tend to view the instant gratification crowd as the hipsters.  The vets have aptly been described as the "get off my lawn" crowd.  Well, that's who I want to get off my lawn, the LFD LFR, hipsters.  Those who say things like, "Cool story bro."  and facetiously ask if I am mad while once again refering to me as a sibling knowing that we are not of relation.  You know?  Hipsters.

Now off of my lawn I'm going to go die in an MMORPG and then not allow myself to res until I can get a naked lvl 1 alt back to my corpse!  (with help from my friends of course)

Originally posted by Tjed

Originally posted by ezpz77
Realistic logical thinking people know this. The only people who truly believe the genre is dying or "devolving" or anything like that are over-emotional, angsty, burned out vets. MMORPG.com just happens ot have an extmrely high ratio of burned out vets to regular old MMO players. And boy, those burned out vets are noisy as hell. They're basically MMO hipsters, and we all know hipsters suck.

It's all perspective.  I tend to view the instant gratification crowd as the hipsters.  The vets have aptly been described as the "get off my lawn" crowd.  Well, that's who I want to get off my lawn, the LFD LFR, hipsters.  Those who say things like, "Cool story bro."  and facetiously ask if I am mad while once again refering to me as a sibling knowing that we are not of relation.  You know?  Hipsters.

Now off of my lawn I'm going to go die in an MMORPG and then not allow myself to res until I can get a naked lvl 1 alt back to my corpse!  (with help from my friends of course)

rofl! I think there is room enough for both "quick fix" and "how far does the rabbit hole go?" types of mmorpgs, especially looking at the size of all those stats.

Originally posted by MumboJumbo

Originally posted by Tjed

Originally posted by ezpz77
Realistic logical thinking people know this. The only people who truly believe the genre is dying or "devolving" or anything like that are over-emotional, angsty, burned out vets. MMORPG.com just happens ot have an extmrely high ratio of burned out vets to regular old MMO players. And boy, those burned out vets are noisy as hell. They're basically MMO hipsters, and we all know hipsters suck.

It's all perspective.  I tend to view the instant gratification crowd as the hipsters.  The vets have aptly been described as the "get off my lawn" crowd.  Well, that's who I want to get off my lawn, the LFD LFR, hipsters.  Those who say things like, "Cool story bro."  and facetiously ask if I am mad while once again refering to me as a sibling knowing that we are not of relation.  You know?  Hipsters.

Now off of my lawn I'm going to go die in an MMORPG and then not allow myself to res until I can get a naked lvl 1 alt back to my corpse!  (with help from my friends of course)

rofl! I think there is room enough for both "quick fix" and "how far does the rabbit hole go?" types of mmorpgs, especially looking at the size of all those stats.

I agree.  I was mostly just joking with my previous reply.  I try to be a glass half full kind of guy.  The fact that the market is doing well while I am not content with any of the current titles, could be viewed as a bad thing.  I prefer to view the implied profitability as a means to provide even more choices in the future.  Hopefuly one that I can sink my teeth into. 

Positive thread?  No wai.

Ah, forum pvp ongoing, of course.  Never mind.

Thanks for the infographic, LB

Originally posted by ezpz77
Realistic logical thinking people know this. The only people who truly believe the genre is dying or "devolving" or anything like that are over-emotional, angsty, burned out vets. MMORPG.com just happens ot have an extmrely high ratio of burned out vets to regular old MMO players. And boy, those burned out vets are noisy as hell. They're basically MMO hipsters, and we all know hipsters suck.

Yeah .. and they wish very hard that the "new" MMOs would die. If they want to stick their head in the sand, it is certainly their perogative.

i kinda agree

we do need a variety of mmos, who wants to eat steak everyday

the trouble was post wow, we kept getting served the same thing rehashed not as good as wow games with a gimmick

or had the alternative of badly financed and buggy as hell indie mmo games

reacing its nadir at the end of 2011.

think things are turning with bigger budget mmos though, TSW and GW2 at least tried to be different, PS2 is different, upcoming games look like being different  and have money behind them - marvel heroes, star citizen, elite 4, everquest next, World of Darkness.  The new darkfall looks like it might have a half decent budget this time.  even so called wow clones like TESO appear to be more in the TSW / GW2 cattegory.

Originally posted by DavisFlight

The fact that LoL and CoD are included makes all the data entirely meaningless.

And even if we ignore that, the fact that a ton of money is being spent in the genre doesn't change the fact that the quality is rock bottom.

lol what people are claiming COD and LOL are MMOs now?  thats almost as silly as the Diablo3 stuff.

---

Originally posted by ShakyMo

---

Originally posted by DavisFlight The fact that LoL and CoD are included makes all the data entirely meaningless. And even if we ignore that, the fact that a ton of money is being spent in the genre doesn't change the fact that the quality is rock bottom.

---

lol what people are claiming COD and LOL are MMOs now?  thats almost as silly as the Diablo3 stuff.

---

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by ShakyMo

---

Originally posted by DavisFlight The fact that LoL and CoD are included makes all the data entirely meaningless. And even if we ignore that, the fact that a ton of money is being spent in the genre doesn't change the fact that the quality is rock bottom.

---

lol what people are claiming COD and LOL are MMOs now?  thats almost as silly as the Diablo3 stuff.

---

The gaming industry. Which also means any analytic firms will also label them as MMOs.

 

If you actualy *read* the website, LOL is included but not COD.

Originally posted by ShakyMo

i kinda agree

we do need a variety of mmos, who wants to eat steak everyday

the trouble was post wow, we kept getting served the same thing rehashed not as good as wow games with a gimmick

or had the alternative of badly financed and buggy as hell indie mmo games

reacing its nadir at the end of 2011.

think things are turning with bigger budget mmos though, TSW and GW2 at least tried to be different, PS2 is different, upcoming games look like being different  and have money behind them - marvel heroes, star citizen, elite 4, everquest next, World of Darkness.  The new darkfall looks like it might have a half decent budget this time.  even so called wow clones like TESO appear to be more in the TSW / GW2 cattegory.

There *is* a variety, based on how this industry analytic firm slice and dice it.

http://www.newzoo.com/insights/the-global-mmo-market-sizing-and-seizing-opportunities-2/

Types of MMO:

- RTS

- RPG

- Resource Management

- Battle Arena

- Shooting

- Action/Fighting/Adventure

- Sport.

And there are also multiple settings from fantasy to sci-fi

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by ShakyMo

i kinda agree

we do need a variety of mmos, who wants to eat steak everyday

the trouble was post wow, we kept getting served the same thing rehashed not as good as wow games with a gimmick

or had the alternative of badly financed and buggy as hell indie mmo games

reacing its nadir at the end of 2011.

think things are turning with bigger budget mmos though, TSW and GW2 at least tried to be different, PS2 is different, upcoming games look like being different  and have money behind them - marvel heroes, star citizen, elite 4, everquest next, World of Darkness.  The new darkfall looks like it might have a half decent budget this time.  even so called wow clones like TESO appear to be more in the TSW / GW2 cattegory.

There *is* a variety, based on how this industry analytic firm slice and dice it.

http://www.newzoo.com/insights/the-global-mmo-market-sizing-and-seizing-opportunities-2/

Types of MMO:

- RTS

- RPG

- Resource Management

- Battle Arena

- Shooting

- Action/Fighting/Adventure

- Sport.

And there are also multiple settings from fantasy to sci-fi

I'm sure you just blew his mind and opened him up to worlds he never knew existed .

Originally posted by lizardbones

---

Originally posted by Lawlmonster
It depends how you view the genre, and to what context. Personally, I wouldn't say that MMO's are dying, or have died, so much as they are mutating, however positive or negative that may be. My issue with MMO being used as a definition of a platform is that we already have one that does exactly the same thing: they're called online games. To use MMO strictly and literally, we're talking about a multiplayer game, played online, with a massive amount of players, and that may as well be fucking anything. By that standard, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is an MMO, just as much as Diablo 3 or Team Fortress 2. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with these games on an individual, mechanical basis, but they don't bare any of the specific features that come to mind when thinking of MMORPG's, which is where the term originated, such as persistant worlds.

---

This is the only fly in the ointment that I can see. It seems like the industry has chosen an expanded definition of the term that is well beyond what the people who created the genre intended. There's no way to tell how much is the traditional MMO and how much is the expanded MMO.

Great thread.  This is more worthy of spotlight posting than some I've read recently.

Anyway, here on this site we like to tightly define and compartmentalize everything.  I don't think the pioneers that invented the genre like Garriott, Jake Song, and their predecessors necessarily had the intention of defining a new gaming genre when they made their games.  All we had were lan multi-player games and the few internet services like AoL or Prodigy that provided some online gaming.  When I started playing Lineage we didn't even call it an MMO or refer to ourselves as MMO gamers in chat or on the forums.  We were just gamers.  The need or desire to define what is and isn't an MMO came later.

I think they include all those different types of multi-player because they are massive, multi-player, online games.  We think in terms of persistent world, role-playing, etc.  The industry as a whole I'm sure understands those subtleties, but overall the genre is evolving way to rapidly to be confined to outdated definitions.  It sort of makes sense to lump them together, plus there isn't a clearly defined separation like there is with console or PC gaming.  If you play it on a console then it's console.  If you play it on a PC then it's PC.  If it's online, and massively multi-player, it's an MMO even though a lot of different gaming styles fit within that.

Originally posted by Torvaldr

I think they include all those different types of multi-player because they are massive, multi-player, online games.  We think in terms of persistent world, role-playing, etc.  The industry as a whole I'm sure understands those subtleties, but overall the genre is evolving way to rapidly to be confined to outdated definitions.  It sort of makes sense to lump them together, plus there isn't a clearly defined separation like there is with console or PC gaming.  If you play it on a console then it's console.  If you play it on a PC then it's PC.  If it's online, and massively multi-player, it's an MMO even though a lot of different gaming styles fit within that.

Yeah .. note that the industry don't care about being "pure". In fact, they are always looking to branch out because that means more customers.

And while a lot here are very obsessed with persistent world, obviously that is not how the industry look at "massive". "Massive" just means a lot of people in an online game for them. Thus, LOL  counts (certainly very massive in terms of players).

I wonder if they also count D3. Personally i have no problem. I don't confine myself to any strict defintiion anyway. I look at a game and see if it is fun.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by ShakyMo

i kinda agree

we do need a variety of mmos, who wants to eat steak everyday

the trouble was post wow, we kept getting served the same thing rehashed not as good as wow games with a gimmick

or had the alternative of badly financed and buggy as hell indie mmo games

reacing its nadir at the end of 2011.

think things are turning with bigger budget mmos though, TSW and GW2 at least tried to be different, PS2 is different, upcoming games look like being different  and have money behind them - marvel heroes, star citizen, elite 4, everquest next, World of Darkness.  The new darkfall looks like it might have a half decent budget this time.  even so called wow clones like TESO appear to be more in the TSW / GW2 cattegory.

There *is* a variety, based on how this industry analytic firm slice and dice it.

http://www.newzoo.com/insights/the-global-mmo-market-sizing-and-seizing-opportunities-2/

Types of MMO:

- RTS

- RPG

- Resource Management

- Battle Arena

- Shooting

- Action/Fighting/Adventure

- Sport.

And there are also multiple settings from fantasy to sci-fi

We do have that variety but they are all Themeparks they all work under the same mechanics and i for one am bored with them + sport or sci fi might not be to evryones taste. to each their own.

Originally posted by xeniar

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by ShakyMo

i kinda agree

we do need a variety of mmos, who wants to eat steak everyday

the trouble was post wow, we kept getting served the same thing rehashed not as good as wow games with a gimmick

or had the alternative of badly financed and buggy as hell indie mmo games

reacing its nadir at the end of 2011.

think things are turning with bigger budget mmos though, TSW and GW2 at least tried to be different, PS2 is different, upcoming games look like being different  and have money behind them - marvel heroes, star citizen, elite 4, everquest next, World of Darkness.  The new darkfall looks like it might have a half decent budget this time.  even so called wow clones like TESO appear to be more in the TSW / GW2 cattegory.

There *is* a variety, based on how this industry analytic firm slice and dice it.

http://www.newzoo.com/insights/the-global-mmo-market-sizing-and-seizing-opportunities-2/

Types of MMO:

- RTS

- RPG

- Resource Management

- Battle Arena

- Shooting

- Action/Fighting/Adventure

- Sport.

And there are also multiple settings from fantasy to sci-fi

We do have that variety but they are all Themeparks they all work under the same mechanics and i for one am bored with them + sport or sci fi might not be to evryones taste. to each their own.

Eve & Planetside 2 are some pretty craazy themeparks then.

Just because there isn't a game every single year that specifically caters to you, doesn't mean there isn't variety.

Originally posted by aesperus

Originally posted by xeniar

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by ShakyMo

i kinda agree

we do need a variety of mmos, who wants to eat steak everyday

the trouble was post wow, we kept getting served the same thing rehashed not as good as wow games with a gimmick

or had the alternative of badly financed and buggy as hell indie mmo games

reacing its nadir at the end of 2011.

think things are turning with bigger budget mmos though, TSW and GW2 at least tried to be different, PS2 is different, upcoming games look like being different  and have money behind them - marvel heroes, star citizen, elite 4, everquest next, World of Darkness.  The new darkfall looks like it might have a half decent budget this time.  even so called wow clones like TESO appear to be more in the TSW / GW2 cattegory.

There *is* a variety, based on how this industry analytic firm slice and dice it.

http://www.newzoo.com/insights/the-global-mmo-market-sizing-and-seizing-opportunities-2/

Types of MMO:

- RTS

- RPG

- Resource Management

- Battle Arena

- Shooting

- Action/Fighting/Adventure

- Sport.

And there are also multiple settings from fantasy to sci-fi

We do have that variety but they are all Themeparks they all work under the same mechanics and i for one am bored with them + sport or sci fi might not be to evryones taste. to each their own.

Eve & Planetside 2 are some pretty craazy themeparks then.

Just because there isn't a game every single year that specifically caters to you, doesn't mean there isn't variety.

Yeh! .. and if there are so much variety, and still one cannot find something you like, may be it is time to ask why. Or .. move on to something else.

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by Banaghran
Well, one must wonder about what a "mmo platform" really is, so out of context it does seem like some sham for investors.

 

Anyways, the mmorpg business is not dying, we dont see blizz bankrupt or things like that, the problem is more in the area of MTV dying, you know, once MUSIC television, now there is more rality shows there than music...

Flame on!

:)

---

The different platforms are explained at the bottom of the info graphic.

 

If i would try to nitpick, i would say that mmos are not explicitly excluded from box sales, but that was not my point, ask just here what a mmo is, you will fin 100 definitions, while a pc platform or mac platform is more straightforward.

A prudent approach would be to call them non-casual online only games, but whatever, its not the atomic explosions infographic that hilariously assumed that every square mile of the surface of the earth would have to be hit by a nuclear blast to end civilisation :)

Flame on!

:)