Some here think MMO is only about persistent world games. Well, obviously the industry disagree.

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

In particular, in this industry analytics firm, which publishes MMO market report as early as 2009. Their reports are used in many gaming site articles. They classify MMO into the following types:

RTS

RPG

Resource Management

Battle Arena

Shooter

Action/Fighting/Adventure

Sport,

and with settings like: Fantasy, Sci-fi, Realism, Anime, Horror, and History.

And they count LOL, and WOT (i guess in the battle arena category). This clearly shows the trend in the industry is expanding, and evolve into more variety. The old way of thinking about MMOs as games only like UO and EQ is a thing of the past.

They're definitely multiplayer and online games, and MMO doesn't and shouldn't automatically imply MMORPG.

That leaves the question as how many players it takes to be "massively" multiplayer, and that's nearly impossible to define.  Even if we agree that 2 players per instance is not massively multiplayer and 10,000 is, I don't think you can justify saying that n players per instance is not massively multiplayer and n+1 is for any value of n.

And even if you could, the number of players per instance varies in many games, whether by area of the game, time of day, or whatever.  Surely it doesn't make sense to claim that a game is an MMO at peak hours and is not an MMO in the middle of the night.

Quizz, the real indicator of mmo status is massively multiplayer. How many people does your activity affect? LoL is not an MMO because the actions in one game do not change the experience of players within the whole game. EvE is an MMO because the actions of any given player permanently alter the experience of many other players.

MMO is the new ironically, or the new literally. Does the rampant misuse of ironic in popular culture change the meaning? I would say no. Therefore the same applies to MMO.

Unfortunately the people who make sense are vastly outnumbered by the plebs so we can't assume that anything means what it meant 10 minutes ago much less 10 years ago.

@OP - Stop, please.  We've told you the difference between old school MMORPG's vs the broad term MMO, which of course encompasses a much broader category of game definintions.

Don't you have some really fun, actiony MMO to go play, instead of wasting time posting here on the forums?

Me? I play EVE, so I have an excuse to post while playing (plenty of relaxing downtime, you know)  

Originally posted by Cuathon

Quizz, the real indicator of mmo status is massively multiplayer. How many people does your activity affect? LoL is not an MMO because the actions in one game do not change the experience of players within the whole game. EvE is an MMO because the actions of any given player permanently alter the experience of many other players.

That's an interesting effort, but it doesn't resolve the question.

What if League of Legends had 100 players per match instead of 10?  How about 1000 players per match?  10000?  Surely affecting 10000 people constitutes massively multiplayer.  If you're going to argue that it isn't because it doesn't affect everyone, then WoW isn't an MMO either, because what happens on one server doesn't affect people on other servers.

And again, we can't go strictly by the number of players.  We can agree that EVE is definitely an MMO.  But what if it were unpopular, and only 50 people played it?  Surely it would still be an MMO, wouldn't it?  Shouldn't being an MMO be something about game design rather than popularity?

If it's about affecting everyone in the entire game, then what if League of Legends were unpopular to the degree that there were never multiple matches running simultaneously.  Surely that wouldn't make it an MMO if it isn't now, would it?

If it's about permanence, then you'd have to argue that the periodic wipes of A Tale in the Desert make it not an MMO.  And that surely can't be right, as one player there can more strongly affect everyone else than in any other game I'm aware of.

Originally posted by Quizzical

They're definitely multiplayer and online games, and MMO doesn't and shouldn't automatically imply MMORPG.

That leaves the question as how many players it takes to be "massively" multiplayer, and that's nearly impossible to define.  Even if we agree that 2 players per instance is not massively multiplayer and 10,000 is, I don't think you can justify saying that n players per instance is not massively multiplayer and n+1 is for any value of n.

And even if you could, the number of players per instance varies in many games, whether by area of the game, time of day, or whatever.  Surely it doesn't make sense to claim that a game is an MMO at peak hours and is not an MMO in the middle of the night.

 MMORPGs should be called MMORPGs, but some many people shorten it to MMO then wonder when games other than MMORPGS are called MMOs.

The "extra" usages of MMO are ok.

Originally posted by Kyleran

Stop, please.  We've told you the difference between old school MMORPG's vs the broad term MMO, which of course encompasses a much broader category of game definintions.

Don't you have some really fun, actiony MMO to go play, instead of wasting time posting here on the forums?

Me? I play EVE, so I have an excuse to post while playing...  

I have a real excuse to. I'm waiting for my program to compile so that the city builder aspects of my experimental RTS engine will finally be completed.

Narius on the other hand has no time to post here because he can get a solid pub raid group inside 2 minutes with WoWs dungeon finder. Sure it destroyed gaming, but at least Narius is too busy to post on mmorpg.com now because his video games offer unprecedented accessibulity and convenience.

Or was that just the dream I had last night that made me jizz in my pants?

Sounds like nariusseldon is admitting what many of us "old timers" have been saying for ages. The games have changed, not us.

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by Cuathon

Quizz, the real indicator of mmo status is massively multiplayer. How many people does your activity affect? LoL is not an MMO because the actions in one game do not change the experience of players within the whole game. EvE is an MMO because the actions of any given player permanently alter the experience of many other players.

That's an interesting effort, but it doesn't resolve the question.

What if League of Legends had 100 players per match instead of 10?  How about 1000 players per match?  10000?  Surely affecting 10000 people constitutes massively multiplayer.  If you're going to argue that it isn't because it doesn't affect everyone, then WoW isn't an MMO either, because what happens on one server doesn't affect people on other servers.

And again, we can't go strictly by the number of players.  We can agree that EVE is definitely an MMO.  But what if it were unpopular, and only 50 people played it?  Surely it would still be an MMO, wouldn't it?  Shouldn't being an MMO be something about game design rather than popularity?

If it's about affecting everyone in the entire game, then what if League of Legends were unpopular to the degree that there were never multiple matches running simultaneously.  Surely that wouldn't make it an MMO if it isn't now, would it?

If it's about permanence, then you'd have to argue that the periodic wipes of A Tale in the Desert make it not an MMO.  And that surely can't be right, as one player there can more strongly affect everyone else than in any other game I'm aware of.

Good thoughts and great questions but it's getting all too complicated for me trying to define what an MMORPG is vs a MMO vs virtual world simulation.

These days, all I can say is I know when I'm in a MMORPG (as I perceive them)  vs when I'm not, even if I can't describe it in a way that anyone would agree with me on.

More like, the industry is trying every last thing it can think of to soft-pedal stripped down versions of everything AND charge for them.

Diablo3 is only the worst offender of pushing the envelope. RMAH auction house that Bliz took a cut for, for a single player/co-op game. What a crock.

MMOs these days, are nothing compared to the originals, simply because the developers have conditioned the gaming public to accept less: less game for their money and more money to play the games. And that is not a small part of the reason why newly released MMOs these days last 2-3 months and then crash.

Anything getting the "MMO" tag is something that producers can "justify" having a cash shop / access fee for. That's it.

And if the industry is "pushing" the definition of what an MMO is, it is only to charge the customer for something they were not able to before.

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by Cuathon

Quizz, the real indicator of mmo status is massively multiplayer. How many people does your activity affect? LoL is not an MMO because the actions in one game do not change the experience of players within the whole game. EvE is an MMO because the actions of any given player permanently alter the experience of many other players.

That's an interesting effort, but it doesn't resolve the question.

What if League of Legends had 100 players per match instead of 10?  How about 1000 players per match?  10000?  Surely affecting 10000 people constitutes massively multiplayer.  If you're going to argue that it isn't because it doesn't affect everyone, then WoW isn't an MMO either, because what happens on one server doesn't affect people on other servers.

If LoL had 100 or more people per match it could be argued that it was an MMO. But it doesn't. And of course it would need to satisfy the other requirements as well, which it doesn't

And again, we can't go strictly by the number of players.  We can agree that EVE is definitely an MMO.  But what if it were unpopular, and only 50 people played it?  Surely it would still be an MMO, wouldn't it?  Shouldn't being an MMO be something about game design rather than popularity?

MMO is decided by potential. As long as it has mechanics that enable massively multiplayer gameplay it would be an MMO.

If it's about affecting everyone in the entire game, then what if League of Legends were unpopular to the degree that there were never multiple matches running simultaneously.  Surely that wouldn't make it an MMO if it isn't now, would it?

If these reductio ad absurdum edge cases are the best counter arguments you have I must come to the conclusion that the kingdom of God has come to earth and that sound I hear is the angels singing "Cuathon Wins" over and over.

If it's about permanence, then you'd have to argue that the periodic wipes of A Tale in the Desert make it not an MMO.  And that surely can't be right, as one player there can more strongly affect everyone else than in any other game I'm aware of.

ATITD is an MMO because game rounds last at least a year. Where the very exact cut off is for whats an MMO is irrelevant since no one can argue that at least 6 months isn't long enough.

I repeat my previous statement about edge cases.

I'll take a break from dreaming of a brighter Narius free future to answer this.

I do believe that the persistance aspect is more appropriately applied to the effect while the player is gone. That is whether it lasts a month or a week if it lasts after the initiating player has gone than it satisfies the persistance requirement. If you feel the need t o be as nitpicky as the points I addressed in red were the persistance includes groups. That is LoL doesn't count because once the original 10 players in a match all quit the instance closes. Thusly instances in online worlds also fail to meet the MMO standard.

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by Cuathon

Quizz, the real indicator of mmo status is massively multiplayer. How many people does your activity affect? LoL is not an MMO because the actions in one game do not change the experience of players within the whole game. EvE is an MMO because the actions of any given player permanently alter the experience of many other players.

That's an interesting effort, but it doesn't resolve the question.

What if League of Legends had 100 players per match instead of 10?  How about 1000 players per match?  10000?  Surely affecting 10000 people constitutes massively multiplayer.  If you're going to argue that it isn't because it doesn't affect everyone, then WoW isn't an MMO either, because what happens on one server doesn't affect people on other servers.

And again, we can't go strictly by the number of players.  We can agree that EVE is definitely an MMO.  But what if it were unpopular, and only 50 people played it?  Surely it would still be an MMO, wouldn't it?  Shouldn't being an MMO be something about game design rather than popularity?

If it's about affecting everyone in the entire game, then what if League of Legends were unpopular to the degree that there were never multiple matches running simultaneously.  Surely that wouldn't make it an MMO if it isn't now, would it?

If it's about permanence, then you'd have to argue that the periodic wipes of A Tale in the Desert make it not an MMO.  And that surely can't be right, as one player there can more strongly affect everyone else than in any other game I'm aware of.

Good thoughts and great questions but it's getting all too complicated for me trying to define what an MMORPG is vs a MMO vs virtual world simulation.

These days, all I can say is I know when I'm in a MMORPG (as I perceive them)  vs when I'm not, even if I can't describe it in a way that anyone would agree with me on.

All I can say is, I know porn when I see it.

-The Supreme Court Of The United States

You are in illustrious company here Kyleran.

I'm not sure that an industry analysis' catagorization changes anything.  A game you can log into online to play with others, no matter the amount, is now considered an "MMO" because it's a term people recognize.  The industry itself is not changing because of certain buzzword tags.  It's closer to lazyness.

I think the term "MMO" is pretty black and white.  We log into online games to play with others.  Play WITH others.  There you have "_MO" covered.  From there what you consider "Massive" if up to you.  Common sense would say that "massive" is pretty big but like Quiz asked: is that 100? 1,000? 10,000?

If you consider 30 people "massive" in an online game then more power to you and even though I don't agree at least you were honest.

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by Cuathon

Quizz, the real indicator of mmo status is massively multiplayer. How many people does your activity affect? LoL is not an MMO because the actions in one game do not change the experience of players within the whole game. EvE is an MMO because the actions of any given player permanently alter the experience of many other players.

That's an interesting effort, but it doesn't resolve the question.

What if League of Legends had 100 players per match instead of 10?  How about 1000 players per match?  10000?  Surely affecting 10000 people constitutes massively multiplayer.  If you're going to argue that it isn't because it doesn't affect everyone, then WoW isn't an MMO either, because what happens on one server doesn't affect people on other servers.

And again, we can't go strictly by the number of players.  We can agree that EVE is definitely an MMO.  But what if it were unpopular, and only 50 people played it?  Surely it would still be an MMO, wouldn't it?  Shouldn't being an MMO be something about game design rather than popularity?

If it's about affecting everyone in the entire game, then what if League of Legends were unpopular to the degree that there were never multiple matches running simultaneously.  Surely that wouldn't make it an MMO if it isn't now, would it?

If it's about permanence, then you'd have to argue that the periodic wipes of A Tale in the Desert make it not an MMO.  And that surely can't be right, as one player there can more strongly affect everyone else than in any other game I'm aware of.

Good thoughts and great questions but it's getting all too complicated for me trying to define what an MMORPG is vs a MMO vs virtual world simulation.

These days, all I can say is I know when I'm in a MMORPG (as I perceive them)  vs when I'm not, even if I can't describe it in a way that anyone would agree with me on.

All I can say is, I know porn when I see it.

-The Supreme Court Of The United States

You are in illustrious company here Kyleran.

LOL, actually these days I'm feeling more and more like "the cheese stands alone". 

Pretty sure I know how the last dinosaur felt before slipping off into extinction....... I hope I remember to turn off the lights....

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by Cuathon

Quizz, the real indicator of mmo status is massively multiplayer. How many people does your activity affect? LoL is not an MMO because the actions in one game do not change the experience of players within the whole game. EvE is an MMO because the actions of any given player permanently alter the experience of many other players.

That's an interesting effort, but it doesn't resolve the question.

What if League of Legends had 100 players per match instead of 10?  How about 1000 players per match?  10000?  Surely affecting 10000 people constitutes massively multiplayer.  If you're going to argue that it isn't because it doesn't affect everyone, then WoW isn't an MMO either, because what happens on one server doesn't affect people on other servers.

And again, we can't go strictly by the number of players.  We can agree that EVE is definitely an MMO.  But what if it were unpopular, and only 50 people played it?  Surely it would still be an MMO, wouldn't it?  Shouldn't being an MMO be something about game design rather than popularity?

If it's about affecting everyone in the entire game, then what if League of Legends were unpopular to the degree that there were never multiple matches running simultaneously.  Surely that wouldn't make it an MMO if it isn't now, would it?

If it's about permanence, then you'd have to argue that the periodic wipes of A Tale in the Desert make it not an MMO.  And that surely can't be right, as one player there can more strongly affect everyone else than in any other game I'm aware of.

Good thoughts and great questions but it's getting all too complicated for me trying to define what an MMORPG is vs a MMO vs virtual world simulation.

These days, all I can say is I know when I'm in a MMORPG (as I perceive them)  vs when I'm not, even if I can't describe it in a way that anyone would agree with me on.

All I can say is, I know porn when I see it.

-The Supreme Court Of The United States

You are in illustrious company here Kyleran.

LOL, actually these days I'm feeling more and more like "the cheese stands alone". 

Pretty sure I know how the last dinosaur felt before slipping off into extinction....... I hope I remember to turn off the lights....

 

 

Your welcome to join the "Get of my lawn" club m8 :) we have a special dinosaur hall :)

Originally posted by issling
I thought they where killing mmorpg games as it was! It's pretty ironic that if your lucky one server is set aside for the rpg in mmorpg:(  Why don't they just drop the last three letters?

Because the RPG doesn't stand for what you mean and never has.It's any MMO game who's gameplay is descedant  from the CRPG genre which intself  descendant from the rulesets of PnP RPGs.It has nothing to do with not breaking lore with your public words and always being "in character" but with the conventions of the rulesets and mechanics.

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by Cuathon

Quizz, the real indicator of mmo status is massively multiplayer. How many people does your activity affect? LoL is not an MMO because the actions in one game do not change the experience of players within the whole game. EvE is an MMO because the actions of any given player permanently alter the experience of many other players.

That's an interesting effort, but it doesn't resolve the question.

What if League of Legends had 100 players per match instead of 10?  How about 1000 players per match?  10000?  Surely affecting 10000 people constitutes massively multiplayer.  If you're going to argue that it isn't because it doesn't affect everyone, then WoW isn't an MMO either, because what happens on one server doesn't affect people on other servers.

And again, we can't go strictly by the number of players.  We can agree that EVE is definitely an MMO.  But what if it were unpopular, and only 50 people played it?  Surely it would still be an MMO, wouldn't it?  Shouldn't being an MMO be something about game design rather than popularity?

If it's about affecting everyone in the entire game, then what if League of Legends were unpopular to the degree that there were never multiple matches running simultaneously.  Surely that wouldn't make it an MMO if it isn't now, would it?

If it's about permanence, then you'd have to argue that the periodic wipes of A Tale in the Desert make it not an MMO.  And that surely can't be right, as one player there can more strongly affect everyone else than in any other game I'm aware of.

Good thoughts and great questions but it's getting all too complicated for me trying to define what an MMORPG is vs a MMO vs virtual world simulation.

These days, all I can say is I know when I'm in a MMORPG (as I perceive them)  vs when I'm not, even if I can't describe it in a way that anyone would agree with me on.

All I can say is, I know porn when I see it.

-The Supreme Court Of The United States

You are in illustrious company here Kyleran.

LOL, actually these days I'm feeling more and more like "the cheese stands alone". 

Pretty sure I know how the last dinosaur felt before slipping off into extinction....... I hope I remember to turn off the lights....

 

 

I wouldn't say you're alone there Ky. I've read enough where I know we don't have the same ideal MMORPG in mind, the basic mechanics behind what we think should be one are the same. (Just saying you're looking for more of a DAOC, I prefer more EQ. :) )

But as far as the definition of MMO goes...from my experience with EQ and from when PoP got released this is what I've come up with. An MMO needs to have a persistant, living, breathing world to be considered one. The focus of the game should be the world and the player's interaction with it. Be that city / house building, different factions and your standing with them, RvR, etc depends on the dev's vision of what they want their game's identity. Anything that detracts from the world feeling (In EQ, when the PoP books or even portals to Luclin were introduced, shrinking the world) detracts from it.

Originally posted by Trudge34

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by Cuathon

Quizz, the real indicator of mmo status is massively multiplayer. How many people does your activity affect? LoL is not an MMO because the actions in one game do not change the experience of players within the whole game. EvE is an MMO because the actions of any given player permanently alter the experience of many other players.

That's an interesting effort, but it doesn't resolve the question.

What if League of Legends had 100 players per match instead of 10?  How about 1000 players per match?  10000?  Surely affecting 10000 people constitutes massively multiplayer.  If you're going to argue that it isn't because it doesn't affect everyone, then WoW isn't an MMO either, because what happens on one server doesn't affect people on other servers.

And again, we can't go strictly by the number of players.  We can agree that EVE is definitely an MMO.  But what if it were unpopular, and only 50 people played it?  Surely it would still be an MMO, wouldn't it?  Shouldn't being an MMO be something about game design rather than popularity?

If it's about affecting everyone in the entire game, then what if League of Legends were unpopular to the degree that there were never multiple matches running simultaneously.  Surely that wouldn't make it an MMO if it isn't now, would it?

If it's about permanence, then you'd have to argue that the periodic wipes of A Tale in the Desert make it not an MMO.  And that surely can't be right, as one player there can more strongly affect everyone else than in any other game I'm aware of.

Good thoughts and great questions but it's getting all too complicated for me trying to define what an MMORPG is vs a MMO vs virtual world simulation.

These days, all I can say is I know when I'm in a MMORPG (as I perceive them)  vs when I'm not, even if I can't describe it in a way that anyone would agree with me on.

All I can say is, I know porn when I see it.

-The Supreme Court Of The United States

You are in illustrious company here Kyleran.

LOL, actually these days I'm feeling more and more like "the cheese stands alone". 

Pretty sure I know how the last dinosaur felt before slipping off into extinction....... I hope I remember to turn off the lights....

 

 

I wouldn't say you're alone there Ky. I've read enough where I know we don't have the same ideal MMORPG in mind, the basic mechanics behind what we think should be one are the same. (Just saying you're looking for more of a DAOC, I prefer more EQ. :) )

But as far as the definition of MMO goes...from my experience with EQ and from when PoP got released this is what I've come up with. An MMO needs to have a persistant, living, breathing world to be considered one. The focus of the game should be the world and the player's interaction with it. Be that city / house building, different factions and your standing with them, RvR, etc depends on the dev's vision of what they want their game's identity. Anything that detracts from the world feeling (In EQ, when the PoP books or even portals to Luclin were introduced, shrinking the world) detracts from it.

That's not "in order to be an MMO".  That's "in order to be a game that you personally like".

On another note, innovative games are often hard to classify, so having a "does this really count as genre X" discussion isn't a bad sign.