The gaming industry and gamers in general have settled on those games being MMOs. *shrug* You are welcome to make up your own definition. Your definition will be ignored everywhere but this one place on the internet, where 200 to 300 people post every day, but you're welcome to do it.
Again, the industry in general isn't obsessed with MMORPGs being anything in particular. That really is just us and the small handful of websites focused on MMORPGs. Everyone else cares about video games, not MMORPGs in particular.
Pretty much this.
I said this many times. Diablo 3 is close enough to MMOs for me. Sure you can split hair and define it not as a MMO, but the small group co-op content is no different to me than 5-man dungeon, and even 10/25 man raid (25 is not that massive), and the only difference is that the lobby is not a city.
why would i care about the differences when I pretty much play MMOs like D3?
While you're not wrong, what you just described is how MMORPGs have gradually turned INTO lobby games over the years. They didn't use to be that way, and some still aren't.
Essentially what happened was a merging of standard video games & MMORPGs. This led to online gaming / 'MMOs'. However, most of them really aren't massive, and use the term loosely, because they have a massive number of players on their servers (as a whole), but they are all segregated down to only a few people.
The term 'massive' may be highly subjective, but it's a term that has been deliberately distorted over the years, because PR knows it's a 'buzz word' that can be used to generate more hype. Just as the term 'beta' has been distorted over the years to mean a marketting stunt or 'free trial' for people to play games.
It might be the current status quo, but that doesn't make it right; and that doesn't mean that's how it should be.
The gaming industry and gamers in general have settled on those games being MMOs. *shrug* You are welcome to make up your own definition. Your definition will be ignored everywhere but this one place on the internet, where 200 to 300 people post every day, but you're welcome to do it.
Again, the industry in general isn't obsessed with MMORPGs being anything in particular. That really is just us and the small handful of websites focused on MMORPGs. Everyone else cares about video games, not MMORPGs in particular.
Pretty much this.
I said this many times. Diablo 3 is close enough to MMOs for me. Sure you can split hair and define it not as a MMO, but the small group co-op content is no different to me than 5-man dungeon, and even 10/25 man raid (25 is not that massive), and the only difference is that the lobby is not a city.
why would i care about the differences when I pretty much play MMOs like D3?
While you're not wrong, what you just described is how MMORPGs have gradually turned INTO lobby games over the years. They didn't use to be that way, and some still aren't.
Essentially what happened was a merging of standard video games & MMORPGs. This led to online gaming / 'MMOs'. However, most of them really aren't massive, and use the term loosely, because they have a massive number of players on their servers (as a whole), but they are all segregated down to only a few people.
The term 'massive' may be highly subjective, but it's a term that has been deliberately distorted over the years, because PR knows it's a 'buzz word' that can be used to generate more hype. Just as the term 'beta' has been distorted over the years to mean a marketting stunt or 'free trial' for people to play games.
It might be the current status quo, but that doesn't make it right; and that doesn't mean that's how it should be.
I don't beleive that game design has switched to pocket worlds to accomodate the free players. They did it because it's cheaper game design and people were still PAYING for it.
If you want to point fingers point them at the ones who paid for this to happen. They're the ones who support these companies.
Essentially what happened was a merging of standard video games & MMORPGs. This led to online gaming / 'MMOs'. However, most of them really aren't massive, and use the term loosely, because they have a massive number of players on their servers (as a whole), but they are all segregated down to only a few people.
It might be the current status quo, but that doesn't make it right; and that doesn't mean that's how it should be.
Certainly they are not massive. I doubt it is a matter of subjectively interpreting the word. MMO is just a convenient label. Just like "world wide web" has nothing to do with spider excrement.
And "how it should be"? There is no such thing. The market decides. So what if MMO is not massive. It is not like some higher authority will come down and smite the devs.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by lizardbones The gaming industry and gamers in general have settled on those games being MMOs. *shrug* You are welcome to make up your own definition. Your definition will be ignored everywhere but this one place on the internet, where 200 to 300 people post every day, but you're welcome to do it. Again, the industry in general isn't obsessed with MMORPGs being anything in particular. That really is just us and the small handful of websites focused on MMORPGs. Everyone else cares about video games, not MMORPGs in particular.
Pretty much this.
I said this many times. Diablo 3 is close enough to MMOs for me. Sure you can split hair and define it not as a MMO, but the small group co-op content is no different to me than 5-man dungeon, and even 10/25 man raid (25 is not that massive), and the only difference is that the lobby is not a city.
why would i care about the differences when I pretty much play MMOs like D3?
I should also clarify that the industry has a definition for MMORPGs too. Essentially, MMORPGs are a subset of MMOs.
D3 is an MMO, but it's not an MMORPG, based on how the industry labels games and the generally accepted definition of the terms MMO and MMORPG. However, if someone did call D3 an MMORPG, places like MMORPG.com are one of the few places where someone would get run over the coals for doing it.
Even limiting the audience to only MMORPG players, there are still millions of them. We see a couple to a few hundred a day here, which is arguably one of the biggest MMORPG sites on the internet. That's not really that many people who care enough about MMORPGs to talk about them relative to the number of people playing them. I would think if MMORPGs were a big, relevant topic to gamers in general, "MMORPG" would be a trending hash tag or something instead of "GTA V".
Somebody, I think it was Loktofeit equated the people on these forums to people in car clubs, talking about details and information that the vast majority of people wouldn't know, and wouldn't want to know. I think that's about as apt a description of MMORPG aficionados as anything else. Millions of people play the games (buy the cars), but a teeny, tiny number of people "care" about them (join car clubs).
We are the equivalent of the guy who drives a Porsche and wears the Porsche jacket.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
D3 is an MMO, but it's not an MMORPG, based on how the industry labels games and the generally accepted definition of the terms MMO and MMORPG. However, if someone did call D3 an MMORPG, places like MMORPG.com are one of the few places where someone would get run over the coals for doing it.
Personally i have no problem with that statement, since MMO (or MMORPG) is just a label to me.
However, i wonder many here will burst a blood vessel hearing that ....
D3 is an MMO, but it's not an MMORPG, based on how the industry labels games and the generally accepted definition of the terms MMO and MMORPG. However, if someone did call D3 an MMORPG, places like MMORPG.com are one of the few places where someone would get run over the coals for doing it.
Personally i have no problem with that statement, since MMO (or MMORPG) is just a label to me.
However, i wonder many here will burst a blood vessel hearing that ....
Because wrong usage of terms makes it harder for ppl to understand each other. OFC, there are plenty of ppl who don't bother about such things, since they never wanted to understand others or to get somewhere with discussions, they are perfectly fine while they are allowed to open mouthes and there is a possibility that someone is listening.
D3 is an MMO, but it's not an MMORPG, based on how the industry labels games and the generally accepted definition of the terms MMO and MMORPG. However, if someone did call D3 an MMORPG, places like MMORPG.com are one of the few places where someone would get run over the coals for doing it.
Personally i have no problem with that statement, since MMO (or MMORPG) is just a label to me.
However, i wonder many here will burst a blood vessel hearing that ....
Because wrong usage of terms makes it harder for ppl to understand each other. OFC, there are plenty of ppl who don't bother about such things, since they never wanted to understand others or to get somewhere with discussions, they are perfectly fine while they are allowed to open mouthes and there is a possibility that someone is listening.
In this case, i think it is pretty clear what he is say.
There is no ifs and buts about what the statement "D3 is an MMO" means, whether you agree or not.
I played 4-player multiplayer in Duke Nukem 3D in high school! It was not an MMO back then. It is not now. 4 player is not MMO. I just posted about this on my hated terms used on mmorpg.com and "MMO" is my hated term, because people throw the term around for anything that has multiplayer.
If D3 is an MMO, so is Starcraft 1, Warcraft 1 & 2, Doom 1 & 2, and so on. I.E. every game with multiplayer ever. That means the X-COM1 mod that allowed multiplayer turned X-COM1 into an MMO!? NO. Quake was an MMO? But it had 8 players! CS:GO has 10 players at a time on a map! So it's an MMO?
NO!
lol...
fuuuuuuuuuuuuu! stupids. The game devs are happy with you thinking D3 is an MMO... lol... D3 is just an online-connected game, something dial-up gave us back when BBS's were the internet.
Edit: The reason why it matters, is because when crappy games get labeled MMO, they show up on MMORPG's games list, and end up wasting my time as I see it is some trading card game, or browser based turn-based pay2win game. In other words, the more people that don't care, the less quality we all get, leading to more people who don't care. I am stabbing here at the idea that shit games can be labeled something they are not. It is like saying WoW is a FPS because you can zoom all the way in, or SWTOR is/was an RTS because you had to strategize in realtime which rock you were going to roll behind.
I played 4-player multiplayer in Duke Nukem 3D in high school! It was not an MMO back then. It is not now. 4 player is not MMO. I just posted about this on my hated terms used on mmorpg.com and "MMO" is my hated term, because people throw the term around for anything that has multiplayer.
If D3 is an MMO, so is Starcraft 1, Warcraft 1 & 2, Doom 1 & 2, and so on. I.E. every game with multiplayer ever. That means the X-COM1 mod that allowed multiplayer turned X-COM1 into an MMO!? NO. Quake was an MMO? But it had 8 players! CS:GO has 10 players at a time on a map! So it's an MMO?
NO!
lol...
fuuuuuuuuuuuuu! stupids. The game devs are happy with you thinking D3 is an MMO... lol... D3 is just an online-connected game, something dial-up gave us back when BBS's were the internet.
wow .... calm down. MMO is just a label of some games. It is not the ten commandments.
I played 4-player multiplayer in Duke Nukem 3D in high school! It was not an MMO back then. It is not now. 4 player is not MMO. I just posted about this on my hated terms used on mmorpg.com and "MMO" is my hated term, because people throw the term around for anything that has multiplayer.
If D3 is an MMO, so is Starcraft 1, Warcraft 1 & 2, Doom 1 & 2, and so on. I.E. every game with multiplayer ever. That means the X-COM1 mod that allowed multiplayer turned X-COM1 into an MMO!? NO. Quake was an MMO? But it had 8 players! CS:GO has 10 players at a time on a map! So it's an MMO?
NO!
lol...
fuuuuuuuuuuuuu! stupids. The game devs are happy with you thinking D3 is an MMO... lol... D3 is just an online-connected game, something dial-up gave us back when BBS's were the internet.
wow .... calm down. MMO is just a label of some games. It is not the ten commandments.
Meh, you get this kind or purist thinking everywhere. Music, art, politics. Terminology is only important to the one using it to bolster their claim or opinion.
And here, especially with the debate that sandboxes MUST be by 'definition' a FFA PvP game. Please let's not hijack this because of my example...
I played 4-player multiplayer in Duke Nukem 3D in high school! It was not an MMO back then. It is not now. 4 player is not MMO. I just posted about this on my hated terms used on mmorpg.com and "MMO" is my hated term, because people throw the term around for anything that has multiplayer.
If D3 is an MMO, so is Starcraft 1, Warcraft 1 & 2, Doom 1 & 2, and so on. I.E. every game with multiplayer ever. That means the X-COM1 mod that allowed multiplayer turned X-COM1 into an MMO!? NO. Quake was an MMO? But it had 8 players! CS:GO has 10 players at a time on a map! So it's an MMO?
NO!
lol...
fuuuuuuuuuuuuu! stupids. The game devs are happy with you thinking D3 is an MMO... lol... D3 is just an online-connected game, something dial-up gave us back when BBS's were the internet.
wow .... calm down. MMO is just a label of some games. It is not the ten commandments.
He’s right though.
Look, if you want to spend your time on the internet claiming that “Of Mice and Men” is an Erotica novel, than don’t be shocked when you get this type of reaction.
Most of these games you and the small group of other regulars keep calling MMOs already have their own classifications. The industry is currently and successfully marketing games as MMOs and throwing in a handful of MMO features and slapping “MMO” on the box.
What’s Mystifying to me is that people who have spent many years playing and discussing these games can’t see this.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
I played 4-player multiplayer in Duke Nukem 3D in high school! It was not an MMO back then. It is not now. 4 player is not MMO. I just posted about this on my hated terms used on mmorpg.com and "MMO" is my hated term, because people throw the term around for anything that has multiplayer.
If D3 is an MMO, so is Starcraft 1, Warcraft 1 & 2, Doom 1 & 2, and so on. I.E. every game with multiplayer ever. That means the X-COM1 mod that allowed multiplayer turned X-COM1 into an MMO!? NO. Quake was an MMO? But it had 8 players! CS:GO has 10 players at a time on a map! So it's an MMO?
NO!
lol...
fuuuuuuuuuuuuu! stupids. The game devs are happy with you thinking D3 is an MMO... lol... D3 is just an online-connected game, something dial-up gave us back when BBS's were the internet.
wow .... calm down. MMO is just a label of some games. It is not the ten commandments.
He’s right though.
Look, if you want to spend your time on the internet claiming that “Of Mice and Men” is an Erotica novel, than don’t be shocked when you get this type of reaction.
Most of these games you and the small group of other regulars keep calling MMOs already have their own classifications. The industry is currently and successfully marketing games as MMOs and throwing in a handful of MMO features and slapping “MMO” on the box.
What’s Mystifying to me is that people who have spent many years playing and discussing these games can’t see this.
Doesn't really matter. If in ten years time 'Mmo's' include all online games, so be it. It's the way things change. Society uses new words all the time that are then included in dictionaries. Why does it matter so much?
It's just an acronym, it does not define what you enjoy doing/playing.
Originally posted by zymurgeist Does anyone else think 2.5 billion is a surprisingly small portion of the market? Blizzard's net revenues for 2012 was 4.86 billion. It's an apples and oranges comparison but one Corporation's net dwarfs the entire free to play market segment.
It is not surprisingly some of you consider the te possibly that that $2.5b probably made up the rest of the mmo markets that is not named WoW
WoW is probably the only mmo that is making unusually crazy amount of money, a freak of nature, like Apple or Samsung if you use the phone market as example, out of a whole brunch of medicores.
Originally posted by zymurgeist Does anyone else think 2.5 billion is a surprisingly small portion of the market? Blizzard's net revenues for 2012 was 4.86 billion. It's an apples and oranges comparison but one Corporation's net dwarfs the entire free to play market segment.
I don't think so. Optimistically, unrealistically so, their gross earnings around 2012 would be approximately $120M per month for $1.4Bn annual. That's based off $15 per month * 8 million users which is way over the top.
The F2P world generates more revenue than the P2P world with WoW included. The largest gaming market is SEA. WoW barely makes the top 5 there for online gaming.
Talking about Blizzard as a whole, not just WoW (I believe).
"it’s clear that Sony has no intention of slowing down, setting its sights on claiming a piece of the free-to-play MMO market. Our early estimates for the US market put the total spending for 2013E at $2.5 billion, growing 57% year-over-year."
"said John Smedley: There is no purer way to see whether you have a good game or not than by saying 'this is free, do you want to play it?'"
I strongly disagree with this.
I consider saying "this costs x USD, do you want to play it" to be purer way to see whether you have a good game or not. The same holds for any product / service, in my eyes.
I'm about a week late into responding with this... But I only agree with your assertion on paper, but not in practice.
To back this statement up I'd like you to take a look at the who "reservation" issue that many seem to dislike. People are willing to pay for games they have never played; they use their money to buy hype, words, videos and severely altered demos that do no show the full experience. There is nothing but blind faith in this, and many times it is not well placed. This is where some pirates get their so-called "high ground" in stating that they want to try something first before they shell out the money for. Again, good on paper but rarely practiced.
The F2P model is the answer to this in a lot of ways, even though it has been abused by many in different situations. Though what is purer than giving someone something in earnest and only asking them to give you money if you enjoy it? It is the hallmark of a great game -- to the individual -- that would part you of your money after you had tried it and still want to play despite it technically not costing you a dime (with the right model). It is the confidence of the developer and what they have in said game to allow for this (again, if it has the right model in that it isn't offensive and is completely free save for the accepted shop model).
This is basically just giving a nod to people who want to try something in earnest before investing in it. No hands tied, no questions asked; if they enjoy it enough to pay for cosmetic items and the like, then that is a great exchange for both developer and consumer alike. No hurt feelings, no ripping each other off. The buyer knows what the game is like, and what they are paying for when they give their money. They may have buyer's remorse, but little more than what we do after we beat single player game and are out $60 because it isn't as replayable as much as we'd like it to be.
Granted that's putting a good spin on what is business and at the core, greed. It also ignores -- save for the several mentions beforehand -- the fact that it is a corruptable model for people who don't have faith in a game to then try to milk it for all of it's worth much like SWTOR's nickle and dime shop. Though as we're just talking about the statement and not the complexities of business models, I'd say that if the articulate was change a bit, his statement would be correct.
Buying something we know little of is the norm. Buying something we already have takes true appreciation of it; this also goes for buying a game we owned before just to have another copy, or perhaps to replace one we lost because we remember having a good time with it.
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
Yes, I see. It's odd that OP would draw conclusions from total non-mmo game sales and compare them to MMO revenue which is a small portion of the industry no matter what way we look at it. I thought they would only be referencing the MMO revenue.
Your article is interesting because Skylanders brought in $1Bn and D3 has sold 13M copies. Not only that but revenues for WoW have likely declined since their subscription numbers have fallen. If we think about it their non-subscription revenue is the huge portion of their total.
There is some really interesting stuff on that page if you look at last year and then 2013 YTD, Tencent has rocketed to number one so far, but that could be influenced by acquisitions.
I totally agree. The numbers are irrelevant for me in the comparison of LoL and WoW, just the trend and which type of game excels (both looked upon as leaders in their respective fields - debatable).
Not going the F2P vs. P2P, that debate is for another thread, one already made many times over.
If 48 million people play f2p, and let's say 10% of them pay an average of 26 dollars a month, where does the 2.5 billion number come from?
Or what's 2.5 billion divided by the total f2p audience which this article says 48 million or so? I still don't see how they arrived at these numbers. Any math wizards out there know how they do this?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
For the many who think F2P is just a fad, I keep saying it, F2P is here to stay for quite a long time. With these kind of revenues, it will only increase.
Originally posted by worldalpha For the many who think F2P is just a fad, I keep saying it, F2P is here to stay for quite a long time. With these kind of revenues, it will only increase.
Definitely.
The best way to trick people into spending money is telling them that it is free with special offers for added value. This is not just for games either.
If 48 million people play f2p, and let's say 10% of them pay an average of 26 dollars a month, where does the 2.5 billion number come from?
Or what's 2.5 billion divided by the total f2p audience which this article says 48 million or so? I still don't see how they arrived at these numbers. Any math wizards out there know how they do this?
Because of the outliers, that 10% averages out to a lot more than 25 dollars a month.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
If 48 million people play f2p, and let's say 10% of them pay an average of 26 dollars a month, where does the 2.5 billion number come from?
Or what's 2.5 billion divided by the total f2p audience which this article says 48 million or so? I still don't see how they arrived at these numbers. Any math wizards out there know how they do this?
Because of the outliers, that 10% averages out to a lot more than 25 dollars a month.
Well it averages to 25 a month for the paying customer not including everyone who doesn't pay. I still don't see how the math adds up to 2.5 billion from 50 million people, unless everyone of them paid 50 bucks a month.
How does 10% of 50 million who averages 25 bucks a month equal 2.5 billion? I understand that some spend more, but how can it average 25 a month per paying user, and come up with 2.5 billion in revenue?
How can it average to 25 a month when you say it averages a lot more?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Originally posted by FinalFikus If 48 million people play f2p, and let's say 10% of them pay an average of 26 dollars a month, where does the 2.5 billion number come from?
Or what's 2.5 billion divided by the total f2p audience which this article says 48 million or so? I still don't see how they arrived at these numbers. Any math wizards out there know how they do this?
If you're going to assume numbers that don't add up, how can anyone possibly reconcile your numbers with theirs?
Of course you can't see how they did this. They have access to information that you don't have, and you don't believe what they are saying, so nothing you imagine would add up to what they are saying.
**
Audience is 46.8M people. Assume 10% are paying $26 a month. That means each month they are collecting $119,600,000. That brings the total per year to $1.4B. If we assume between 15% and 20% of people are actually paying instead of 10%, then we arrive at $2.5B. You need some justification for your 10% assumption to say they are flubbing their numbers.
The final note here is that the projection is for 2013, which isn't over yet. They are assuming some sort of trend in the number of players. The dollars paid per playing player has remained constant, so they are assuming either the number of players will remain constant 'til year's end, or they are assuming that the number of players will continue to rise 'til year's end. Since we don't have all the information, it's hard to say which assumption they are using.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by FinalFikus If 48 million people play f2p, and let's say 10% of them pay an average of 26 dollars a month, where does the 2.5 billion number come from?
Or what's 2.5 billion divided by the total f2p audience which this article says 48 million or so? I still don't see how they arrived at these numbers. Any math wizards out there know how they do this?
If you're going to assume numbers that don't add up, how can anyone possibly reconcile your numbers with theirs?
Of course you can't see how they did this. They have access to information that you don't have, and you don't believe what they are saying, so nothing you imagine would add up to what they are saying.
**
Audience is 46.8M people. Assume 10% are paying $26 a month. That means each month they are collecting $119,600,000. That brings the total per year to $1.4B. If we assume between 15% and 20% of people are actually paying instead of 10%, then we arrive at $2.5B. You need some justification for your 10% assumption to say they are flubbing their numbers.
The final note here is that the projection is for 2013, which isn't over yet. They are assuming some sort of trend in the number of players. The dollars paid per playing player has remained constant, so they are assuming either the number of players will remain constant 'til year's end, or they are assuming that the number of players will continue to rise 'til year's end. Since we don't have all the information, it's hard to say which assumption they are using.
All the "data" is based on estimates, extrapolations and predictions. Unless SuperData Research is heavily into industrial espionage, they don't really have any hard numbers to report, seeing as game companies are notoriously bad at reporting actual game profits.
Anyone that has any experience of analysing corporate earnings reports knows that it is something of a "black art". There are many ways of presenting numbers, and many ways to manipulate or "spin" that representation. So here we have company (SuperData) that is most likely applying "spin" to their predictions, predictions that themselves are based on data that is often presented in the most obscure way possible. The outcome can be pretty much whatever you want it to be
Until the likes of John Smedley or Bobby Kotick publicly praise the quality of SuperData's analysis, I'll simply disregard their "predictions". As far as I can see, all their efforts are aimed at selling their own products. They bigger they can make the numbers, the better the chances that someone will buy their "market analysis".
I'm in no way convinced that the payment model for games played via smartphone apps is remotely relevant to the kind of MMO's that I play. It's not the same product, it's not aimed at the same audience, so why would you try to market and price it in the same way ?
Doesn't really matter. If in ten years time 'Mmo's' include all online games, so be it. It's the way things change. Society uses new words all the time that are then included in dictionaries. Why does it matter so much?
It's just an acronym, it does not define what you enjoy doing/playing.
It matters for those who are here to discuss things, since it spoils providing examples. Its annoying to dig through all irrelevant examples, bringed in on basis that "some ad-person calls this game MMO". If we start using term "MMO" for non-MMOs, this means we need new term for actual MMOs and its too time-consuming to find a word which all MMO players would agree on. Feeding ppl, using term in wrong way, with crap seems much more effective solution.
Comments
While you're not wrong, what you just described is how MMORPGs have gradually turned INTO lobby games over the years. They didn't use to be that way, and some still aren't.
Essentially what happened was a merging of standard video games & MMORPGs. This led to online gaming / 'MMOs'. However, most of them really aren't massive, and use the term loosely, because they have a massive number of players on their servers (as a whole), but they are all segregated down to only a few people.
The term 'massive' may be highly subjective, but it's a term that has been deliberately distorted over the years, because PR knows it's a 'buzz word' that can be used to generate more hype. Just as the term 'beta' has been distorted over the years to mean a marketting stunt or 'free trial' for people to play games.
It might be the current status quo, but that doesn't make it right; and that doesn't mean that's how it should be.
I don't beleive that game design has switched to pocket worlds to accomodate the free players. They did it because it's cheaper game design and people were still PAYING for it.
If you want to point fingers point them at the ones who paid for this to happen. They're the ones who support these companies.
Certainly they are not massive. I doubt it is a matter of subjectively interpreting the word. MMO is just a convenient label. Just like "world wide web" has nothing to do with spider excrement.
And "how it should be"? There is no such thing. The market decides. So what if MMO is not massive. It is not like some higher authority will come down and smite the devs.
I said this many times. Diablo 3 is close enough to MMOs for me. Sure you can split hair and define it not as a MMO, but the small group co-op content is no different to me than 5-man dungeon, and even 10/25 man raid (25 is not that massive), and the only difference is that the lobby is not a city.
why would i care about the differences when I pretty much play MMOs like D3?
I should also clarify that the industry has a definition for MMORPGs too. Essentially, MMORPGs are a subset of MMOs.
D3 is an MMO, but it's not an MMORPG, based on how the industry labels games and the generally accepted definition of the terms MMO and MMORPG. However, if someone did call D3 an MMORPG, places like MMORPG.com are one of the few places where someone would get run over the coals for doing it.
Even limiting the audience to only MMORPG players, there are still millions of them. We see a couple to a few hundred a day here, which is arguably one of the biggest MMORPG sites on the internet. That's not really that many people who care enough about MMORPGs to talk about them relative to the number of people playing them. I would think if MMORPGs were a big, relevant topic to gamers in general, "MMORPG" would be a trending hash tag or something instead of "GTA V".
Somebody, I think it was Loktofeit equated the people on these forums to people in car clubs, talking about details and information that the vast majority of people wouldn't know, and wouldn't want to know. I think that's about as apt a description of MMORPG aficionados as anything else. Millions of people play the games (buy the cars), but a teeny, tiny number of people "care" about them (join car clubs).
We are the equivalent of the guy who drives a Porsche and wears the Porsche jacket.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
All the new porshes are crap, they don't make them like they used to.
Personally i have no problem with that statement, since MMO (or MMORPG) is just a label to me.
However, i wonder many here will burst a blood vessel hearing that ....
Because wrong usage of terms makes it harder for ppl to understand each other. OFC, there are plenty of ppl who don't bother about such things, since they never wanted to understand others or to get somewhere with discussions, they are perfectly fine while they are allowed to open mouthes and there is a possibility that someone is listening.
In this case, i think it is pretty clear what he is say.
There is no ifs and buts about what the statement "D3 is an MMO" means, whether you agree or not.
D3 IS NOT AN MMO!
What kind of idiocy leads people to think that?
I played 4-player multiplayer in Duke Nukem 3D in high school! It was not an MMO back then. It is not now. 4 player is not MMO. I just posted about this on my hated terms used on mmorpg.com and "MMO" is my hated term, because people throw the term around for anything that has multiplayer.
If D3 is an MMO, so is Starcraft 1, Warcraft 1 & 2, Doom 1 & 2, and so on. I.E. every game with multiplayer ever. That means the X-COM1 mod that allowed multiplayer turned X-COM1 into an MMO!? NO. Quake was an MMO? But it had 8 players! CS:GO has 10 players at a time on a map! So it's an MMO?
NO!
lol...
fuuuuuuuuuuuuu! stupids. The game devs are happy with you thinking D3 is an MMO... lol... D3 is just an online-connected game, something dial-up gave us back when BBS's were the internet.
Edit: The reason why it matters, is because when crappy games get labeled MMO, they show up on MMORPG's games list, and end up wasting my time as I see it is some trading card game, or browser based turn-based pay2win game. In other words, the more people that don't care, the less quality we all get, leading to more people who don't care. I am stabbing here at the idea that shit games can be labeled something they are not. It is like saying WoW is a FPS because you can zoom all the way in, or SWTOR is/was an RTS because you had to strategize in realtime which rock you were going to roll behind.
wow .... calm down. MMO is just a label of some games. It is not the ten commandments.
Meh, you get this kind or purist thinking everywhere. Music, art, politics. Terminology is only important to the one using it to bolster their claim or opinion.
And here, especially with the debate that sandboxes MUST be by 'definition' a FFA PvP game. Please let's not hijack this because of my example...
He’s right though.
Look, if you want to spend your time on the internet claiming that “Of Mice and Men” is an Erotica novel, than don’t be shocked when you get this type of reaction.
Most of these games you and the small group of other regulars keep calling MMOs already have their own classifications. The industry is currently and successfully marketing games as MMOs and throwing in a handful of MMO features and slapping “MMO” on the box.
What’s Mystifying to me is that people who have spent many years playing and discussing these games can’t see this.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Doesn't really matter. If in ten years time 'Mmo's' include all online games, so be it. It's the way things change. Society uses new words all the time that are then included in dictionaries. Why does it matter so much?
It's just an acronym, it does not define what you enjoy doing/playing.
It is not surprisingly some of you consider the te possibly that that $2.5b probably made up the rest of the mmo markets that is not named WoW
WoW is probably the only mmo that is making unusually crazy amount of money, a freak of nature, like Apple or Samsung if you use the phone market as example, out of a whole brunch of medicores.
Talking about Blizzard as a whole, not just WoW (I believe).
The number 4.86 has been seen here:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/activision-blizzard-profits-hit-11-billion-in-2012/1100-6403613/
Take it how you wish, I have no opinion about it one way or the other. Just siting where the number comes from.
I'm about a week late into responding with this... But I only agree with your assertion on paper, but not in practice.
To back this statement up I'd like you to take a look at the who "reservation" issue that many seem to dislike. People are willing to pay for games they have never played; they use their money to buy hype, words, videos and severely altered demos that do no show the full experience. There is nothing but blind faith in this, and many times it is not well placed. This is where some pirates get their so-called "high ground" in stating that they want to try something first before they shell out the money for. Again, good on paper but rarely practiced.
The F2P model is the answer to this in a lot of ways, even though it has been abused by many in different situations. Though what is purer than giving someone something in earnest and only asking them to give you money if you enjoy it? It is the hallmark of a great game -- to the individual -- that would part you of your money after you had tried it and still want to play despite it technically not costing you a dime (with the right model). It is the confidence of the developer and what they have in said game to allow for this (again, if it has the right model in that it isn't offensive and is completely free save for the accepted shop model).
This is basically just giving a nod to people who want to try something in earnest before investing in it. No hands tied, no questions asked; if they enjoy it enough to pay for cosmetic items and the like, then that is a great exchange for both developer and consumer alike. No hurt feelings, no ripping each other off. The buyer knows what the game is like, and what they are paying for when they give their money. They may have buyer's remorse, but little more than what we do after we beat single player game and are out $60 because it isn't as replayable as much as we'd like it to be.
Granted that's putting a good spin on what is business and at the core, greed. It also ignores -- save for the several mentions beforehand -- the fact that it is a corruptable model for people who don't have faith in a game to then try to milk it for all of it's worth much like SWTOR's nickle and dime shop. Though as we're just talking about the statement and not the complexities of business models, I'd say that if the articulate was change a bit, his statement would be correct.
Buying something we know little of is the norm. Buying something we already have takes true appreciation of it; this also goes for buying a game we owned before just to have another copy, or perhaps to replace one we lost because we remember having a good time with it.
I totally agree. The numbers are irrelevant for me in the comparison of LoL and WoW, just the trend and which type of game excels (both looked upon as leaders in their respective fields - debatable).
Not going the F2P vs. P2P, that debate is for another thread, one already made many times over.
If 48 million people play f2p, and let's say 10% of them pay an average of 26 dollars a month, where does the 2.5 billion number come from?
Or what's 2.5 billion divided by the total f2p audience which this article says 48 million or so? I still don't see how they arrived at these numbers. Any math wizards out there know how they do this?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Thanks,
Mike
Working on Social Strategy MMORTS (now Launched!) http://www.worldalpha.com
Definitely.
The best way to trick people into spending money is telling them that it is free with special offers for added value. This is not just for games either.
It is a solid business model.
Because of the outliers, that 10% averages out to a lot more than 25 dollars a month.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Well it averages to 25 a month for the paying customer not including everyone who doesn't pay. I still don't see how the math adds up to 2.5 billion from 50 million people, unless everyone of them paid 50 bucks a month.
How does 10% of 50 million who averages 25 bucks a month equal 2.5 billion? I understand that some spend more, but how can it average 25 a month per paying user, and come up with 2.5 billion in revenue?
How can it average to 25 a month when you say it averages a lot more?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
If you're going to assume numbers that don't add up, how can anyone possibly reconcile your numbers with theirs?
Of course you can't see how they did this. They have access to information that you don't have, and you don't believe what they are saying, so nothing you imagine would add up to what they are saying.
**
Audience is 46.8M people. Assume 10% are paying $26 a month. That means each month they are collecting $119,600,000. That brings the total per year to $1.4B. If we assume between 15% and 20% of people are actually paying instead of 10%, then we arrive at $2.5B. You need some justification for your 10% assumption to say they are flubbing their numbers.
The final note here is that the projection is for 2013, which isn't over yet. They are assuming some sort of trend in the number of players. The dollars paid per playing player has remained constant, so they are assuming either the number of players will remain constant 'til year's end, or they are assuming that the number of players will continue to rise 'til year's end. Since we don't have all the information, it's hard to say which assumption they are using.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
All the "data" is based on estimates, extrapolations and predictions. Unless SuperData Research is heavily into industrial espionage, they don't really have any hard numbers to report, seeing as game companies are notoriously bad at reporting actual game profits.
Anyone that has any experience of analysing corporate earnings reports knows that it is something of a "black art". There are many ways of presenting numbers, and many ways to manipulate or "spin" that representation. So here we have company (SuperData) that is most likely applying "spin" to their predictions, predictions that themselves are based on data that is often presented in the most obscure way possible. The outcome can be pretty much whatever you want it to be
Until the likes of John Smedley or Bobby Kotick publicly praise the quality of SuperData's analysis, I'll simply disregard their "predictions". As far as I can see, all their efforts are aimed at selling their own products. They bigger they can make the numbers, the better the chances that someone will buy their "market analysis".
I'm in no way convinced that the payment model for games played via smartphone apps is remotely relevant to the kind of MMO's that I play. It's not the same product, it's not aimed at the same audience, so why would you try to market and price it in the same way ?
It matters for those who are here to discuss things, since it spoils providing examples. Its annoying to dig through all irrelevant examples, bringed in on basis that "some ad-person calls this game MMO". If we start using term "MMO" for non-MMOs, this means we need new term for actual MMOs and its too time-consuming to find a word which all MMO players would agree on. Feeding ppl, using term in wrong way, with crap seems much more effective solution.