Interesting! Personally I'd go with 150 minimum per zone, 50% more than Battle Royale games (100-player map) which aren't considered MMO. I prefer when it's more crowded.
What happens when you have 150 in a zone, but 120 are /afk for various reasons? And are you counting *people* playing or *characters* in the game world? How do you count 1 person operating 3 characters (i.e., boxing)? In my experience, *people* have fun, *characters* don't.
I'd qualify an MMO as unique individuals (people) actively playing (not-afk) in the same game-world (server) at the same time. With that definition, I'd think that a minimum of 500 people would constitute an MMO game. I don't know that we've seen many true MMORPGs in some while. The various ways of being non-active tends to cause us to overestimate the actual population of the games we play.
We can't even take a bio-break now? Answer the door for our pizza and beer delivery? "Any AFK" is not counted?
I get your point, to be sure. "AFK'ers" that fall asleep are a very different kind of critter. Isn't that a mighty fine line you're setting in the sand, don't you think?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I think the first M in MMO is the Roman numeral for 1,000.
The server should be able to handle up to at least 1,000 at a time, and should be able to support all 1,000 in a single zone.
If you only allow 50 or 100 in the same zone simultaneously, that's just a co-op game.
I think the second "M" counts, too! 2000 players!
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Back in the early days when MMORPGS were single "worlds" the answers was more straight forward for me.
Minimum of 500 per persistent world was all I considered, without regard to player population in a specific zone, region or battle.
Since then I've seen 2000 plus players in a single solar system in EVE as a normal thing, with carefully staged battles being much higher.
I've also played FO76, with roughly 35 players per world, but one can quickly flip between a near endless number of copies.
ESO has mega servers, no telling how many are in each zone, (or how many copies each zone has active) seems like I can't swing a stick without running into other players just about everywhere, so much so that it's actually an annoyance more often than not.
So I'm really not sure what the correct answer is anymore.
What? Thats such nonsense. Where in "Massively Multiplayer Online" does it state anything about persistence? It literally only stands for a massive quantity of players together concurrently in one single shared reality. That's it. Its three words. It can be 500 people together in a 30 minute FPS match. Its still an MMO. Persistence is only a standard part of mmoRPG. Then you bring up FO76 which relates even less to anything here. It doesn't have a massive quantity of people in any instance. Switching between 35 person instances doesn't do anything to make it an MMO. That makes no sense. If we were to take that logic and run with it there is an argument to call Chess an MMO as so many people can be playing it at the same time but not together.
As for the topic at hand, I feel the "massively" portion is mostly subjective. It most certainly has to be a number that is far greater than the norm. I always used 500 players in a single shared world as my base line. Im sure I'd consider games with slightly lower MMO's too.
At first, I agreed with Camel. Then I read Kyleran's and found my head nodding in agreement. Basing on my EQ 1 experience, I agree with you and Camel. MMOs are not made that way anymore.
Now, I'm not sure where I think a "hard number" works anymore. I'm kind of with Iselin, too, thinking that it needs to "look busy" for me
Kyleran doesn't even understand the basic part of MMO as he adds in "persistence". Then continues on and brings up a 35 player instanced game as an example of what could be an MMO.
Thing is, mmo stands for massively multiplayer online. Its so simple. A massive quantity of people online together concurrently in one shared world. Its all the 3 words mean. It was created to distinguish these games from standard games that have a much more limited player count in a virtual world. To start merging normal multiplayer games with MMO's on the basis that there are instances completely and utterly renders "MMO" useless as a definition. Why have a definition that stands for a ton of people in world then make it stand for a ton of people in separate worlds? Wouldn't that technically make any FPS game with even 16 players an MMO? We already have a proper MMOFPS in Planetside 2. We don't need to branch out and call 64 player games MMO's as you can switch from match to match, server to server.
And to clarify, persistence is a part of MMORPG's. MMO itself does not include persistence.
Its how many active players in a Persistent World .. that number IMO is 5000
So meaning it can support up to 5000 players in the same Persistent World .. ( That does not mean they all have to be online at same time )
Maybe only 800 are on an any given time but the persistent world part is what escapses most people ..
Im certain there will be window licking pushback and lack of understanding with this
This is the key to the question.
An MMO, by the classic definition, is a single, open, persistent world which can accommodate at least hundreds (500-2000+) of players concurrently.
I appreciate that some people think that there are many ways to define an MMO, but none of them are more accurate to the core than "SINGLE, OPEN, PERSISTENT WORLD".
Sometimes that world can be reset, like in Haven & Hearth, or WWIIOnline.
To me it is more important that the game acts like a MMO and not a matter of how many people can login through a login server. I do not want ANY instances at all. I do not want FAKE structures like in Cyberpunk "using an example".If you make a building it better have a moving door and insides.
I will use a simple example. Atlas a game i no longer play has a completely open world,everyone can see everyone else if they wanted to.Homes are OPEN world,you can again see the homes,see the boats,nothing is instanced. Even within the few dungeons you can enter them and see the other players.I used this game as an example bcause if a low budget two bit scummy develoepr can pull it off,ANYONE should be able to do the MMO world properly. Instances are for the CRAPPY employees who don't have a clue how to create a MMO world.I guess i could also point the finger at the leads and all the top execs because they SHOULD be paying attention to their game and how it is being developed.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Interesting! Personally I'd go with 150 minimum per zone, 50% more than Battle Royale games (100-player map) which aren't considered MMO. I prefer when it's more crowded.
What happens when you have 150 in a zone, but 120 are /afk for various reasons? And are you counting *people* playing or *characters* in the game world? How do you count 1 person operating 3 characters (i.e., boxing)? In my experience, *people* have fun, *characters* don't.
I'd qualify an MMO as unique individuals (people) actively playing (not-afk) in the same game-world (server) at the same time. With that definition, I'd think that a minimum of 500 people would constitute an MMO game. I don't know that we've seen many true MMORPGs in some while. The various ways of being non-active tends to cause us to overestimate the actual population of the games we play.
We can't even take a bio-break now? Answer the door for our pizza and beer delivery? "Any AFK" is not counted?
I get your point, to be sure. "AFK'ers" that fall asleep are a very different kind of critter. Isn't that a mighty fine line you're setting in the sand, don't you think?
It's not the 'fall asleep' kind of AFKers that bother me. It's the hoard of AFK characters parked in 'safe zones' (like the Guild Lobby or POK in EQ1). These characters simply hang around with the hopes of getting free buffs (from MGBs) and not tick the timers on buffs until they wake up. All they do is tie-up the limited chat channels (via Autojoin) and bump up the screen loading times when zoning into these zones.
I've found the asleep-at-the-wheel types to be a very, very limited set of players. Humorous, fun to make fun of, but rare.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
In your opinion, how many players per zone* (cities excluded) does it take for a game to be considered a MMO?
*An area of a map where players can interact with each others without loading screen
Min: Zero.
An MMO can have totally empty zones, and still be an MMO.
The idea of an MMO, is that there are many people playing this game along with you, and while you might never see them, or interact with them directly, the idea is simply that they are there, and you could play and interact with them if you opted to.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
My thought is whatever amount of people the original "mmorpg" servers could accommodate WHEN the initialism was coined is probably the barometer to be used.
And then how much less until mmorpg doesn't apply "if" you are using the original definition.
But as we know (though some can't accept - or won't) language changes and evolves so the original "mmorpg" might no longer apply.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Back in the early days when MMORPGS were single "worlds" the answers was more straight forward for me.
Minimum of 500 per persistent world was all I considered, without regard to player population in a specific zone, region or battle.
Since then I've seen 2000 plus players in a single solar system in EVE as a normal thing, with carefully staged battles being much higher.
I've also played FO76, with roughly 35 players per world, but one can quickly flip between a near endless number of copies.
ESO has mega servers, no telling how many are in each zone, (or how many copies each zone has active) seems like I can't swing a stick without running into other players just about everywhere, so much so that it's actually an annoyance more often than not.
So I'm really not sure what the correct answer is anymore.
What? Thats such nonsense. Where in "Massively Multiplayer Online" does it state anything about persistence? It literally only stands for a massive quantity of players together concurrently in one single shared reality. That's it. Its three words. It can be 500 people together in a 30 minute FPS match. Its still an MMO. Persistence is only a standard part of mmoRPG. Then you bring up FO76 which relates even less to anything here. It doesn't have a massive quantity of people in any instance. Switching between 35 person instances doesn't do anything to make it an MMO. That makes no sense. If we were to take that logic and run with it there is an argument to call Chess an MMO as so many people can be playing it at the same time but not together.
As for the topic at hand, I feel the "massively" portion is mostly subjective. It most certainly has to be a number that is far greater than the norm. I always used 500 players in a single shared world as my base line. Im sure I'd consider games with slightly lower MMO's too.
Err, relevant text from my post.
"Back in the early days when MMORPGS were single "worlds" the answers was more straight forward for me.
Minimum of 500 per persistent world was all I considered, without regard to player population in a specific zone, region or battle."
Not sure why you went off on your "MMO" rant, most here know the proper definition of such terms is a hill I'm always willing to die on.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I would say that a game is not dead so long as another player is seen every time that it is played... but of course that is nothing compared to the rush of release that people jump from game to game enjoying. Honestly though I think that it depends on the game... as many of them do not really matter whether there are many players in there or not. Just as long as you can get others to play with, that is all that really matters... unless its a pvp game and if that is the case, its likely obtainable if the game still exists but will never be as good as it was during launch.
It wouldn't bother me to play a game that is mostly dead honestly... not really anymore... because I am more just simply thankful that any given game is simply available to play for some nostalgia factor.
NEWS FLASH!"A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished!https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
Pinpointing a specific player count for MMO categorization is tricky as it's more about the experience than a headcount. A game could have thousands of players, but if they're mostly confined to separate instances or interact minimally, it wouldn't feel "massive" or "multiplayer-driven."
Conversely, a game with even hundreds of players actively interacting in a persistent, seamless zone (your "zone" definition) could very much evoke the MMO spirit. Therefore, the key lies in the density and dynamic nature of player interaction within a shared, open world, not just a raw number.
I think that nails it.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Comments
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I think the second "M" counts, too! 2000 players!
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
As for the topic at hand, I feel the "massively" portion is mostly subjective. It most certainly has to be a number that is far greater than the norm. I always used 500 players in a single shared world as my base line. Im sure I'd consider games with slightly lower MMO's too.
Thing is, mmo stands for massively multiplayer online. Its so simple. A massive quantity of people online together concurrently in one shared world. Its all the 3 words mean. It was created to distinguish these games from standard games that have a much more limited player count in a virtual world. To start merging normal multiplayer games with MMO's on the basis that there are instances completely and utterly renders "MMO" useless as a definition. Why have a definition that stands for a ton of people in world then make it stand for a ton of people in separate worlds? Wouldn't that technically make any FPS game with even 16 players an MMO? We already have a proper MMOFPS in Planetside 2. We don't need to branch out and call 64 player games MMO's as you can switch from match to match, server to server.
And to clarify, persistence is a part of MMORPG's. MMO itself does not include persistence.
An MMO, by the classic definition, is a single, open, persistent world which can accommodate at least hundreds (500-2000+) of players concurrently.
I appreciate that some people think that there are many ways to define an MMO, but none of them are more accurate to the core than "SINGLE, OPEN, PERSISTENT WORLD".
Sometimes that world can be reset, like in Haven & Hearth, or WWIIOnline.
I do not want ANY instances at all.
I do not want FAKE structures like in Cyberpunk "using an example".If you make a building it better have a moving door and insides.
I will use a simple example.
Atlas a game i no longer play has a completely open world,everyone can see everyone else if they wanted to.Homes are OPEN world,you can again see the homes,see the boats,nothing is instanced.
Even within the few dungeons you can enter them and see the other players.I used this game as an example bcause if a low budget two bit scummy develoepr can pull it off,ANYONE should be able to do the MMO world properly.
Instances are for the CRAPPY employees who don't have a clue how to create a MMO world.I guess i could also point the finger at the leads and all the top execs because they SHOULD be paying attention to their game and how it is being developed.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
An MMO can have totally empty zones, and still be an MMO.
The idea of an MMO, is that there are many people playing this game along with you, and while you might never see them, or interact with them directly, the idea is simply that they are there, and you could play and interact with them if you opted to.
My thought is whatever amount of people the original "mmorpg" servers could accommodate WHEN the initialism was coined is probably the barometer to be used.
And then how much less until mmorpg doesn't apply "if" you are using the original definition.
But as we know (though some can't accept - or won't) language changes and evolves so the original "mmorpg" might no longer apply.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
"Back in the early days when MMORPGS were single "worlds" the answers was more straight forward for me.
Not sure why you went off on your "MMO" rant, most here know the proper definition of such terms is a hill I'm always willing to die on.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
It wouldn't bother me to play a game that is mostly dead honestly... not really anymore... because I am more just simply thankful that any given game is simply available to play for some nostalgia factor.
NEWS FLASH! "A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/ Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished! https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/ Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
I think that nails it.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo