You've changed your tune. If 200 vs 200 is happening in a persistent world, it's not a series of tiny instances, which is what you first said. Yes, that would indeed be massive enough, so long as all the 400 players were in the same world.
I haven't changed my tune. It could be going on on a server that holds 2000 gamers. So 5 instances of the same arena on one server.
Or 2 instances of 500 vs 500.
But now we are moving more towards what makes it massive.
So, this basically agnolishes my point. Everybody has their own definition, and their own expectations - and nobody knows what the hell to expect when (in example) Blizzard releases its next game marketed as an "MMO".
Other than those that really overthink things, what gamers don't know what an MMO is? The most common answer you'll get is some form of "a bunch of players together in an online game" which, surprisingly, is what the letters of MMO stand for.
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
MMO has become like sandbox a term that has become meaningless because of it being interchanged for other terms and misuse by the industry itself for marketing purposes and bad industry journalism.
Back when the terms were first being thrown around we had clear ideas of what those terms meant but that has now been muddied and diluted by the above.
So, this basically agnolishes my point. Everybody has their own definition, and their own expectations - and nobody knows what the hell to expect when (in example) Blizzard releases its next game marketed as an "MMO".
Other than those that really overthink things, what gamers don't know what an MMO is? The most common answer you'll get is some form of "a bunch of players together in an online game" which, surprisingly, is what the letters of MMO stand for.
No, I'd say most people think MMO more of "a game that is always online" considering games like Age of Empires Online get called MMOs despite the fact that you cannot play with more than 3 people at any given time. But you're all connected to the same database (that acts as DRM, mostly).
The term MMO is confused and meaningless now. It was coined to explain a specific type of game, but it has lost that clarity, hence why we need a new term.
You used to be able to hear "MMO" and make assumptions about what kind of game it was. Now, the only thing that's given is that you need the internet.
The acronym is fine I'm just tired of seeing it applied to games that are lacking the "RPG" and the first "M". A real massively multiplayer online role playing game is exactly what I want to play but very few, if any, literal ones exist
Is it realistic to think we would affect and influence tens of millions of other gamers into buying our definition?
At the risk of sounding naive: Why not?
If there's anything I've learned by being a citizen of the Internet since '95, it's that you'll never know what gets picked up? Like, who would have known lolcats would be our gods when they designed ArpaNet?
Seriously though, why not? If we'd put our heads together, coin a term with a well defined (not to be read as: specifically) prerequisite that reflects basic principles of what [we] define (take for granted) as an MMORPG, it could happen.
You don't have to stop there - you can always additional detail like
MMO lobby game with instanced group play, etc...
LoL and Diablo3 are both MMO(Games) - as both allow many 1000s of players to connect to the same set of online servers hosted by one company. The online service enforces, common servrer rule set with server validation, account security services, and platform services (tracks player transaction history), and often has customer support for gameplay/ account and payment issues.
MMOs also must have robust database clusters to save player data in real time, as all player data resides on the servers.
i do not know what your on to think that games like Path of Exile and Diablo 3 are MMO's but you are wrong. THey are linear dungeon crawlers with multi-player capabilities. a true MMOARPG is games like Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, and Wildstar Online.
"Possibly we humans can exist without actually having to fight. But many of us have chosen to fight. For what reason? To protect something? Protect what? Ourselves? The future? If we kill people to protect ourselves and this future, then what sort of future is it, and what will we have become? There is no future for those who have died. And what of those who did the killing? Is happiness to be found in a future that is grasped with blood stained hands? Is that the truth?"
Is it realistic to think we would affect and influence tens of millions of other gamers into buying our definition?
At the risk of sounding naive: Why not?
If there's anything I've learned by being a citizen of the Internet since '95, it's that you'll never know what gets picked up? Like, who would have known lolcats would be our gods when they designed ArpaNet?
Seriously though, why not? If we'd put our heads together, coin a term with a well defined (not to be read as: specifically) prerequisite that reflects basic principles of what [we] define (take for granted) as an MMORPG, it could happen.
Because the terms as you propose - ways to create arbitrary subsets based on personal preference - only serve to make things more complicated. It doesn't make anything easier to understand or more efficient to categorize, especially when the dividing line is based on subjective segregation - "I don't like those games so I don't want them in the same category as the ones I like."
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
You don't have to stop there - you can always additional detail like
MMO lobby game with instanced group play, etc...
LoL and Diablo3 are both MMO(Games) - as both allow many 1000s of players to connect to the same set of online servers hosted by one company. The online service enforces, common servrer rule set with server validation, account security services, and platform services (tracks player transaction history), and often has customer support for gameplay/ account and payment issues.
MMOs also must have robust database clusters to save player data in real time, as all player data resides on the servers.
i do not know what your on to think that games like Path of Exile and Diablo 3 are MMO's but you are wrong. THey are linear dungeon crawlers with multi-player capabilities. a true MMOARPG is games like Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, and Wildstar Online.
Never played D3 but I know Path of Exile has public areas with random players to talk and trade even if it is a heavily instanced. Its certainly a hybrid.
You don't have to stop there - you can always additional detail like
MMO lobby game with instanced group play, etc...
LoL and Diablo3 are both MMO(Games) - as both allow many 1000s of players to connect to the same set of online servers hosted by one company. The online service enforces, common servrer rule set with server validation, account security services, and platform services (tracks player transaction history), and often has customer support for gameplay/ account and payment issues.
MMOs also must have robust database clusters to save player data in real time, as all player data resides on the servers.
i do not know what your on to think that games like Path of Exile and Diablo 3 are MMO's but you are wrong. THey are linear dungeon crawlers with multi-player capabilities. a true MMOARPG is games like Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, and Wildstar Online.
And why do you get to decide what they are and what they get called ? MMO pretty much means online now. You can fight it and call people wrong but they're going to keep on doing it...and that's how terms get into popular use in the first place. Your opinion is a pebble in the river when it comes to this.
I'd like to define some of my concerns. These are my personal opinions.
The lack of persistency pretty much equates to "not an MMO".
An MMO isn't defined by the tag-along acronym, such as FPS, RPG, RTS et cetera.
An MMO does not define a conclusive setting or theme.
Technical limitations does not exclude (nor include) games from the genre.
A designed crowd-limitation (i.e. not technical) contradicts the MMO genre.
Some folks consider a correlation between how you host/serve a game, and how it's categorised. The concept of always online doesn't classify a game as an MMO. I can strategise an engage "real time" in World of Warcraft, that doesn't make it an RTS. How the physical servers align has nothing to do with the game, and its genre.
Also, technical limitations aren't valid arguments to define a genre. If "hundreds" is current the limitation, the same definition should hold true in the future when technical caveats are long gone.
What seems to be true, is the lack of persistency and/or the manifested explicitly designed limitations of a crowd.
Diablo, Path of Exile, League of Legends, Starcraft ([enter more examples here]) all lack or possess the same ingredient to be excluded from the genre. Therefor to me League of Legends (and the alike) are as "MMO" as Starcraft and, ... EAs NHL. They're designed not to be played in mass, and they are not persistent. The same applies to Diablo 3 (and the other ARPGs), they're not designed to be played in mass, even though it conforms to my persistency rule.
So here's my suggestion. Add-to, alter or refute as you please:
Massvie to me means the normal content is accessible to more than 5-6 people on a side/instance at once, not the pool it draws from. So while I play LoL, it is not a MMO anything to me. A lot of newer mmos have become more functional lobby mmos, due to tons of instancing (yes they have some open zones, but they are not high up for the function of the game).
I just say more traditional mmo, don't know a better term to use, and some people think LoL/Diablo and such are mmos and I dont care to argue it...As anyone can argue anything. People like to say sandbox people argue what is a real sandbox....Well ask themepark players what should and shouldn't be in a real themepark and you will get just as much disagreement.
This site used to require 100 people in an shared area to even be listed here. The makers of guild wars 1 and the industry fathers said guild wars 1 was NOT an mmorpg. The line is already drawn. Only people trying to sell something are claiming otherwise while we roll our eyes.
MMORPG is a tainted abbreviation now anyways. They wanted it they can keep it.
Worlds sell big everywhere, they market themselves, but the greater good police don't likes em.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Is it realistic to think we would affect and influence tens of millions of other gamers into buying our definition?
At the risk of sounding naive: Why not?
If there's anything I've learned by being a citizen of the Internet since '95, it's that you'll never know what gets picked up? Like, who would have known lolcats would be our gods when they designed ArpaNet?
Seriously though, why not? If we'd put our heads together, coin a term with a well defined (not to be read as: specifically) prerequisite that reflects basic principles of what [we] define (take for granted) as an MMORPG, it could happen.
Because the terms as you propose - ways to create arbitrary subsets based on personal preference - only serve to make things more complicated. It doesn't make anything easier to understand or more efficient to categorize, especially when the dividing line is based on subjective segregation - "I don't like those games so I don't want them in the same category as the ones I like."
Most of the original terms were created my marketers for specific titles (and argued over just as vehemently a decade ago as today)--why would the publishers give up the free promotion? "We gave our game a new acronym because it's soooo different" -- obvious sell-more-boxes smoke and mirrors, and one that's already been used many times.
You don't have to stop there - you can always additional detail like
MMO lobby game with instanced group play, etc...
LoL and Diablo3 are both MMO(Games) - as both allow many 1000s of players to connect to the same set of online servers hosted by one company. The online service enforces, common servrer rule set with server validation, account security services, and platform services (tracks player transaction history), and often has customer support for gameplay/ account and payment issues.
MMOs also must have robust database clusters to save player data in real time, as all player data resides on the servers.
i do not know what your on to think that games like Path of Exile and Diablo 3 are MMO's but you are wrong. THey are linear dungeon crawlers with multi-player capabilities. a true MMOARPG is games like Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, and Wildstar Online.
And why do you get to decide what they are and what they get called ? MMO pretty much means online now. You can fight it and call people wrong but they're going to keep on doing it...and that's how terms get into popular use in the first place. Your opinion is a pebble in the river when it comes to this.
every fps since Quake 2 has had online ability does that make them MMO's? no. just because something is online does not make it a MMO.
"Possibly we humans can exist without actually having to fight. But many of us have chosen to fight. For what reason? To protect something? Protect what? Ourselves? The future? If we kill people to protect ourselves and this future, then what sort of future is it, and what will we have become? There is no future for those who have died. And what of those who did the killing? Is happiness to be found in a future that is grasped with blood stained hands? Is that the truth?"
Is it realistic to think we would affect and influence tens of millions of other gamers into buying our definition?
At the risk of sounding naive: Why not?
If there's anything I've learned by being a citizen of the Internet since '95, it's that you'll never know what gets picked up? Like, who would have known lolcats would be our gods when they designed ArpaNet?
Seriously though, why not? If we'd put our heads together, coin a term with a well defined (not to be read as: specifically) prerequisite that reflects basic principles of what [we] define (take for granted) as an MMORPG, it could happen.
Because the terms as you propose - ways to create arbitrary subsets based on personal preference - only serve to make things more complicated. It doesn't make anything easier to understand or more efficient to categorize, especially when the dividing line is based on subjective segregation - "I don't like those games so I don't want them in the same category as the ones I like."
Most of the original terms were created my marketers for specific titles (and argued over just as vehemently a decade ago as today)--why would the publishers give up the free promotion? "We gave our game a new acronym because it's soooo different" -- obvious sell-more-boxes smoke and mirrors, and one that's already been used many times.
I've actually had that discussion several times in various circles, and what you say rings true but only when the game really does benefit from another title. Examples of that are Guild Wars' "CORPG" and the recent revival of the term "Action RPG" (thank you, Nexon!).
However, there has been little benefit in trying to relabel under a different term for most MMOs, as gamers (outside of these forums) readily understood what "MMO" means. Introducing a new term means having to get people to learn it, which then means that interview time, ad space and messaging real estate has to now be divided between teaching people the new term and then selling the value of it.
But the term itself carries too much baggage these days, so you rarely see it mentioned for the newer titles. GW2, Dragon's Prophet, Everquest Next, Wildstar... you'll notice that the term is almost non-existent on their sites. Some never mention it at all. Creating a new term would simply pigeonhole the game into a different bucket, so it's easier to just describe your game for what it is with a smattering of "immersive" and "online world" here and there to hit the key points without labeling.
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
Is it realistic to think we would affect and influence tens of millions of other gamers into buying our definition?
At the risk of sounding naive: Why not?
If there's anything I've learned by being a citizen of the Internet since '95, it's that you'll never know what gets picked up? Like, who would have known lolcats would be our gods when they designed ArpaNet?
Seriously though, why not? If we'd put our heads together, coin a term with a well defined (not to be read as: specifically) prerequisite that reflects basic principles of what [we] define (take for granted) as an MMORPG, it could happen.
Because the terms as you propose - ways to create arbitrary subsets based on personal preference - only serve to make things more complicated. It doesn't make anything easier to understand or more efficient to categorize, especially when the dividing line is based on subjective segregation - "I don't like those games so I don't want them in the same category as the ones I like."
Most of the original terms were created my marketers for specific titles (and argued over just as vehemently a decade ago as today)--why would the publishers give up the free promotion? "We gave our game a new acronym because it's soooo different" -- obvious sell-more-boxes smoke and mirrors, and one that's already been used many times.
I've actually had that discussion several times in various circles, and what you say rings true but only when the game really does benefit from another title. Examples of that are Guild Wars' "CORPG" and the recent revival of the term "Action RPG" (thank you, Nexon!).
However, there has been little benefit in trying to relabel under a different term for most MMOs, as gamers (outside of these forums) readily understood what "MMO" means. Introducing a new term means having to get people to learn it, which then means that interview time, ad space and messaging real estate has to now be divided between teaching people the new term and then selling the value of it.
But the term itself carries too much baggage these days, so you rarely see it mentioned for the newer titles. GW2, Dragon's Prophet, Everquest Next, Wildstar... you'll notice that the term is almost non-existent on their sites. Some never mention it at all. Creating a new term would simply pigeonhole the game into a different bucket, so it's easier to just describe your game for what it is with a smattering of "immersive" and "online world" here and there to hit the key points without labeling.
When people suggest that the definition of mmo expanding accounts for the current growth, are they wrong? Or are actual mmo's still growing like the links suggest?
It would be nice to have real information:)
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Is it realistic to think we would affect and influence tens of millions of other gamers into buying our definition?
At the risk of sounding naive: Why not?
If there's anything I've learned by being a citizen of the Internet since '95, it's that you'll never know what gets picked up? Like, who would have known lolcats would be our gods when they designed ArpaNet?
Seriously though, why not? If we'd put our heads together, coin a term with a well defined (not to be read as: specifically) prerequisite that reflects basic principles of what [we] define (take for granted) as an MMORPG, it could happen.
Because the terms as you propose - ways to create arbitrary subsets based on personal preference - only serve to make things more complicated. It doesn't make anything easier to understand or more efficient to categorize, especially when the dividing line is based on subjective segregation - "I don't like those games so I don't want them in the same category as the ones I like."
Most of the original terms were created my marketers for specific titles (and argued over just as vehemently a decade ago as today)--why would the publishers give up the free promotion? "We gave our game a new acronym because it's soooo different" -- obvious sell-more-boxes smoke and mirrors, and one that's already been used many times.
I've actually had that discussion several times in various circles, and what you say rings true but only when the game really does benefit from another title. Examples of that are Guild Wars' "CORPG" and the recent revival of the term "Action RPG" (thank you, Nexon!).
However, there has been little benefit in trying to relabel under a different term for most MMOs, as gamers (outside of these forums) readily understood what "MMO" means. Introducing a new term means having to get people to learn it, which then means that interview time, ad space and messaging real estate has to now be divided between teaching people the new term and then selling the value of it.
But the term itself carries too much baggage these days, so you rarely see it mentioned for the newer titles. GW2, Dragon's Prophet, Everquest Next, Wildstar... you'll notice that the term is almost non-existent on their sites. Some never mention it at all. Creating a new term would simply pigeonhole the game into a different bucket, so it's easier to just describe your game for what it is with a smattering of "immersive" and "online world" here and there to hit the key points without labeling.
MMORPW - Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing World
MMO games DO NOT have to be worlds. They can be highly instanced arenas.
A highly instanced arena would go directly against what the word MMO was coined to mean. Can you have a thousand players in this highly instanced arena? Is it online all the time, the same for everyone? No? Then it's not an MMO.
And yes I like the acronym MMORPW.
Why do we need new words? Because the purpose of language is to be clear and communicate a point. The term MMORPG no longer communicates ANYTHING if games as different as UO and LoL can be considered in that same genre.
So, this basically agnolishes my point. Everybody has their own definition, and their own expectations - and nobody knows what the hell to expect when (in example) Blizzard releases its next game marketed as an "MMO".
An analogy would be: As fans we want an arena holding 50,000 people, instead we get a building with 5,000 rooms each with a limit of 10 people. That ain't right.
every fps since Quake 2 has had online ability does that make them MMO's? no. just because something is online does not make it a MMO.
So? MMO is just a common label .. it is stick to LoL, and WoT but not CoD. So what .. it is how the term is commonly used now. Looking for some deeper meaning is just .... not very useful.
If they aren't sharing the same place, thousands of people aren't battling it out. What you just described is an FPS server. Is Counterstrike an MMO?
Nope. But only because of common usage. There is no thousand of people battling it out in WoW, nor thousand of people fighting a single boss, and most of the gameplay is either solo or instanced .. and that still is called a MMO.
every fps since Quake 2 has had online ability does that make them MMO's? no. just because something is online does not make it a MMO.
So? MMO is just a common label .. it is stick to LoL, and WoT but not CoD. So what .. it is how the term is commonly used now. Looking for some deeper meaning is just .... not very useful.
It's not how it's commonly used. Only people advertising free2play use it that way in my opinion.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Comments
I haven't changed my tune. It could be going on on a server that holds 2000 gamers. So 5 instances of the same arena on one server.
Or 2 instances of 500 vs 500.
But now we are moving more towards what makes it massive.
Other than those that really overthink things, what gamers don't know what an MMO is? The most common answer you'll get is some form of "a bunch of players together in an online game" which, surprisingly, is what the letters of MMO stand for.
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
MMO has become like sandbox a term that has become meaningless because of it being interchanged for other terms and misuse by the industry itself for marketing purposes and bad industry journalism.
Back when the terms were first being thrown around we had clear ideas of what those terms meant but that has now been muddied and diluted by the above.
No, I'd say most people think MMO more of "a game that is always online" considering games like Age of Empires Online get called MMOs despite the fact that you cannot play with more than 3 people at any given time. But you're all connected to the same database (that acts as DRM, mostly).
The term MMO is confused and meaningless now. It was coined to explain a specific type of game, but it has lost that clarity, hence why we need a new term.
You used to be able to hear "MMO" and make assumptions about what kind of game it was. Now, the only thing that's given is that you need the internet.
He is not the only one.
Devs are ignoring the word massively.
Many solo players are ignoring the word massively.
Many instanced pve & pvp players are ignoring the word massively.
So?
The acronym is fine I'm just tired of seeing it applied to games that are lacking the "RPG" and the first "M". A real massively multiplayer online role playing game is exactly what I want to play but very few, if any, literal ones exist
At the risk of sounding naive: Why not?
If there's anything I've learned by being a citizen of the Internet since '95, it's that you'll never know what gets picked up? Like, who would have known lolcats would be our gods when they designed ArpaNet?
Seriously though, why not? If we'd put our heads together, coin a term with a well defined (not to be read as: specifically) prerequisite that reflects basic principles of what [we] define (take for granted) as an MMORPG, it could happen.
i do not know what your on to think that games like Path of Exile and Diablo 3 are MMO's but you are wrong. THey are linear dungeon crawlers with multi-player capabilities. a true MMOARPG is games like Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, and Wildstar Online.
"Possibly we humans can exist without actually having to fight. But many of us have chosen to fight. For what reason? To protect something? Protect what? Ourselves? The future? If we kill people to protect ourselves and this future, then what sort of future is it, and what will we have become? There is no future for those who have died. And what of those who did the killing? Is happiness to be found in a future that is grasped with blood stained hands? Is that the truth?"
Because the terms as you propose - ways to create arbitrary subsets based on personal preference - only serve to make things more complicated. It doesn't make anything easier to understand or more efficient to categorize, especially when the dividing line is based on subjective segregation - "I don't like those games so I don't want them in the same category as the ones I like."
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
Never played D3 but I know Path of Exile has public areas with random players to talk and trade even if it is a heavily instanced. Its certainly a hybrid.
Joined 2004 - I can't believe I've been a MMORPG.com member for 20 years! Get off my lawn!
Virtual World
MMOVW
just rolls right off the tongue.
Actually now I'm wondering why there was every a need for two M's in MMO.
If it's online, then it should already be assumed to be multiplayer.
And of course it's virtual. It's a computer game!
So what about Massive Online World, MOW.
And why do you get to decide what they are and what they get called ? MMO pretty much means online now. You can fight it and call people wrong but they're going to keep on doing it...and that's how terms get into popular use in the first place. Your opinion is a pebble in the river when it comes to this.
I'd like to define some of my concerns. These are my personal opinions.
MMPE - Massively Multiplayer Persistent Experience
Massvie to me means the normal content is accessible to more than 5-6 people on a side/instance at once, not the pool it draws from. So while I play LoL, it is not a MMO anything to me. A lot of newer mmos have become more functional lobby mmos, due to tons of instancing (yes they have some open zones, but they are not high up for the function of the game).
I just say more traditional mmo, don't know a better term to use, and some people think LoL/Diablo and such are mmos and I dont care to argue it...As anyone can argue anything. People like to say sandbox people argue what is a real sandbox....Well ask themepark players what should and shouldn't be in a real themepark and you will get just as much disagreement.
This site used to require 100 people in an shared area to even be listed here. The makers of guild wars 1 and the industry fathers said guild wars 1 was NOT an mmorpg. The line is already drawn. Only people trying to sell something are claiming otherwise while we roll our eyes.
MMORPG is a tainted abbreviation now anyways. They wanted it they can keep it.
Worlds sell big everywhere, they market themselves, but the greater good police don't likes em.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Most of the original terms were created my marketers for specific titles (and argued over just as vehemently a decade ago as today)--why would the publishers give up the free promotion? "We gave our game a new acronym because it's soooo different" -- obvious sell-more-boxes smoke and mirrors, and one that's already been used many times.
every fps since Quake 2 has had online ability does that make them MMO's? no. just because something is online does not make it a MMO.
"Possibly we humans can exist without actually having to fight. But many of us have chosen to fight. For what reason? To protect something? Protect what? Ourselves? The future? If we kill people to protect ourselves and this future, then what sort of future is it, and what will we have become? There is no future for those who have died. And what of those who did the killing? Is happiness to be found in a future that is grasped with blood stained hands? Is that the truth?"
I've actually had that discussion several times in various circles, and what you say rings true but only when the game really does benefit from another title. Examples of that are Guild Wars' "CORPG" and the recent revival of the term "Action RPG" (thank you, Nexon!).
However, there has been little benefit in trying to relabel under a different term for most MMOs, as gamers (outside of these forums) readily understood what "MMO" means. Introducing a new term means having to get people to learn it, which then means that interview time, ad space and messaging real estate has to now be divided between teaching people the new term and then selling the value of it.
But the term itself carries too much baggage these days, so you rarely see it mentioned for the newer titles. GW2, Dragon's Prophet, Everquest Next, Wildstar... you'll notice that the term is almost non-existent on their sites. Some never mention it at all. Creating a new term would simply pigeonhole the game into a different bucket, so it's easier to just describe your game for what it is with a smattering of "immersive" and "online world" here and there to hit the key points without labeling.
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
When people suggest that the definition of mmo expanding accounts for the current growth, are they wrong? Or are actual mmo's still growing like the links suggest?
It would be nice to have real information:)
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
And then have the reader go....oh it's an mmo.
Agreed.
So? MMO is just a common label .. it is stick to LoL, and WoT but not CoD. So what .. it is how the term is commonly used now. Looking for some deeper meaning is just .... not very useful.
Nope. But only because of common usage. There is no thousand of people battling it out in WoW, nor thousand of people fighting a single boss, and most of the gameplay is either solo or instanced .. and that still is called a MMO.
It's not how it's commonly used. Only people advertising free2play use it that way in my opinion.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"