As for F2P...please name me 1 game that released as a FTP game and was worth a damn? Maybe Neverwinter, but it's still not as good as most AAA games.
"Worth a damn" is subjective.
Worth a damn to me ... Marvel Heroes ... ONLY recent RPG with marvel characters. The last one was Marvel Ultimate Alliance 1 & 2 .. many years ago.
And btw, it has a 81 on metacritics, and 8.1 user score ... so apparently it is "worth a damn" not only to me.
I agree that Marvel Heroes in an awesome game, but I just don't see how it's similar (in any aspect) or even measures up to AAA MMORPG's. It's a pretty different beast, albeit an awesome one
People often cite that 50 cents a day for entertainment is pretty cheap, but it's not really in the context of the wider scope of entertainment. For less than that Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Prime offer access to thousands of movies and TV shows. An mmo is only offering that one game. Many single/multi/coop games offer more for so much less. If you pick up a game like Torchlight 2, Divinity:OS, Skyrim, or any other game with a mod community you can get a better game experience for a fixed fee that ends up being much less than 50 cents a day. The 50 cents a day sounds so cheap until you look at it as, would you play this game for $150 - $350 a year? Now that sounds crazy.
You didn't give any reason why my analogy is bad other than it concerned food. Fine apply it to cars if you want or any consumer product for that matter. Fact is that anything has a cost to produce and no business is going to sell at a loss just out of some charitable desire. They need to make a profit to keep the lights on. Selling a high volume cheap product (in game terms LoL) is very different from selling a more expensive to produce product to a smaller group of people (MMOs). You can still make a profit with the latter but you're going to need to charge a higher price to do it.
The OP is really asking for MMOs to stop existing because if people agree with him and will only accept completely free games then devs will simply throw up their hands and make cheap, disposable games that can be supported on that kind of business model.
Even $350 a year is pretty cheap for entertainment. Been to a sporting event lately? Even a movie? $350 doesn't really go very far. Sure I guess you could sit at home and watch netflix all year or run through the same shit in Skyrim you've done 20 times before for cheaper but I much prefer a good MMO to that.
F2P is casual and 9/10 times greedy sub model for mmorpgs. The difference between the f2p model of LoL and MMO's is that MOBAS can make a ton of money off cosmetics where as significantly fewer would spend their money in a f2p MMORPG cash shop period, let alone on cosmetic items hence why they throw in "p2w" purchases. There are some that aren't p2w too, but as a result don't make a lot of money and don't produce content quickly enough or in high enough quantity.
P2P is the only way the industry will evolve, just don't make it a WoW clone.
F2P will always have major drawbacks, fx the developers need to earn money on their product. The equation will NEVER add up, just take a look around....
The difference between the f2p model of LoL and MMO's is that MOBAS can make a ton of money off cosmetics where as significantly fewer would spend their money in a f2p MMORPG cash shop period
Actually it comes down to development cost. Selling cosmetics is more than enough to cover the costs on MOBAs, not so much on a MMO. MOBAs have only one map and that's pretty much it, the size of one single dungeon on a typical MMO. They don't need a crapton of programmers and artists to design a huge world, various dungeons and all the mechanics on them. A crafting system, quests, modelling countless mobs, bosses, NPCs, armor for every race and sex.
A MOBA can stay afloat very easily with just donations. A triple A MMO cannot.
Why should there be a really free game? Do YOU work for free?
What are the "free" games that make it hard to justify paying? Because i am still a sub paying gamer due to lack of interesting free options. Or the "free" options simply being too expensive to afford for me.
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
F2P + cash shop is the present for many games, and future to remaining P2P games.
My educated guess - for some it will come sooner (ESO, WS) than later (WoW, FF14ARR)
Other smaller niche games (like Darkfall) can remain P2P as long as their operational costs are kept small (small team, small number of servers) - so they don't require a large playerbase to keep going.
This. I think F2P + Cash shop will be the future for many games , also built in ads for real life products and services.
Just look at BF4 In game with ultra settings turned on, and you get the point for ingame ads.
Originally posted by DMKanoF2P + cash shop is the present for many games, and future to remaining P2P games.My educated guess - for some it will come sooner (ESO, WS) than later (WoW, FF14ARR)Other smaller niche games (like Darkfall) can remain P2P as long as their operational costs are kept small (small team, small number of servers) - so they don't require a large playerbase to keep going.
These same points were made about email services in the early 2000's. Everyone said that free email was junk, and that no one would ever take it seriously.
Today free email is the standard... but paid email is still doing just fine. They satisfy different needs, just like free vs paid gaming. The future is likely to be very similar, with free being the standard, but with paid models doing just fine as well.
Apples and oranges. Free email only survived becasue of names like Google and Yahoo sponsoring them....more than likely as loss leaders. While Free internet from NetZero and Juno went belly up. Now it looks like Turbine is struggling to make a truth out of the title in this thread.
Free email only survives because it is cheap to maintain, and because it generates more revenue than it costs. (Business 101). Google came after the Paid to Free conversion of email (by Yahoo/Hotmail and others). Today's 'free' email still offers paid options, which make them plenty of money every year.
Games are moving to free for the same reason that email did. The high cost of customer acquisition, and the low cost per user (at scale). Free products can lower the cost of customer acquisition for paid products, and in doing so, generate a lot of revenue for low cost (i.e. good ROI).
Free email only survives because it is cheap to maintain,
This. Why does the concept of costs to produce and maintain always escapes people? Ever seen free cars, free TVs? Plus email is used by hundreds of millions of people and how much it costs to maintain it would be stupid to charge for it.
The only difference between paid games and "free" games is you decide when to spend your money.
It is almost a guarantee you WILL spend money on a "free" game that you're investing time in, so really it's not free anymore; you've paid for it in one way or another. Be it a sub, a hero, some cosmetics, extra features, an expansion, some DLC.. whatever.
The market of players who never put a dime into an F2P game they invest more than 30 hours I'd say is very, very small.
Now sure, I've played F2P games I've never spent a penny on but really I didn't last more than 10 hours; so I didn't exactly "play" it, more tested if anything.
I like how companies have put the control back into the players hands; it means they have to work harder for your money now.
It's the illusion of free but a good one none the less.
F2P is a rather general term when you look at different games using this model. Each one has different methods for implementing their funding method. Most have cash shops, but their implementation varies widely. In fact, so widely, that to date there is no type of unofficial industry standard, which would go a long way in determining whether people like the model or not. For now it is a matter of I like A games F2P model but not B games. (of course this allows for unlimited debate of the forums, so it provides that extra bit of entertainment) Because of this, it will take a while before F2P can be lumped into this broad category if ever. P2P is simple, you pay you play... or is it.
Is P2P dead. Not yet I don't think. In particular, there are many older folks who grew up with this and feel more comfortable with it. In fact, I would hazard a guess that it's a pretty large group, with the resources to pay if they choose. As they begin fading out (hopefully not for a long time), I think F2P will ultimately win the battle.
As for F2P...please name me 1 game that released as a FTP game and was worth a damn? Maybe Neverwinter, but it's still not as good as most AAA games.
"Worth a damn" is subjective.
Worth a damn to me ... Marvel Heroes ... ONLY recent RPG with marvel characters. The last one was Marvel Ultimate Alliance 1 & 2 .. many years ago.
And btw, it has a 81 on metacritics, and 8.1 user score ... so apparently it is "worth a damn" not only to me.
I agree that Marvel Heroes in an awesome game, but I just don't see how it's similar (in any aspect) or even measures up to AAA MMORPG's. It's a pretty different beast, albeit an awesome one
It measures up by being fun, and I prefer to play it than "AAA MMORPGs"?
Similar? It is classified as one .. that is "similar" enough for me.
I wont get involved with the dick measuring that is going on here, but will mention, that the former employee's at Turbine prolly thought that f2p was gonna be the model that ensured the companies prosperity.
Roses are red Violets are blue The reviewer has a mishapen head Which means his opinion is skewed ...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
Lot of peoples are set. With a definitive answer, unshaken.
I din't pay to play an online game in a long time...I buy games at a discount for my consoles most of the time.
But to say I wouldn't pay? That's quite a statement.
The interest has to be there...and the trust. I wouln't pay $60 to buy a game, even less a monthly subscribtion without a form of trust to have been built first. (I did purchase Mario Cart on released day after all)
Never says never...but with a GF and a job and 3 free Facebooks games, a MMO would have a hard time to get in a casual spot, an even harder time to dislodges the 2 remaining Facebook games so I can have some times to play...a 2 hours game session would be hard to get...a 5? Never says never, but then you have to dislodges also various boardgames.
Would I pay for a monthly sub game? If it provide me enought interest yes...but I don't see that happening in the short terms.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
And as in COMPLETLY free to play...League of Legends is best example and MMORPG's should start adopting this. Reality is the experienced gamer can enjoy a lot of great games free out there to justify paying for a game these days, especially one with sub attached.
MMORPG's should start adopting a more modern payment model if they want to stay competitive and attractive. Payment models such as adding advertisement ingame that fits for the virtual world. Have system in place where players are welcome to donate if they enjoy the product, but give them limited recognition, like supporter tag on forums, something like Path of Exile does.
Reality is completely free to play is the new player in town and it's taking the market rapidly by surprise. Fact is the bigger the playerbase you attract, the better it is for your product, free advertising through word of mouth and more potential players more potential ways to get $ floating to your product.
So, I won't be surprised at all if the next AAA MMORPG's coming in the next few years come completely free to play. Times are indeed changing and for the better for us the players. I've bought every single expensaion on release for WOW since launch, but it won't be the case anymore.
Bottom line is, why pay to enjoy a game when I'm already enjoying another one for free? The free will always have priority.
Agreed 100%. I mean sure they'll be subscription MMO's but they will never do as well or have as much retention as F2P games. IMO Subscriptions or P2P MMO's are becoming the new indie MMO's of 10-12 years ago and most High Production quality MMO's will eventually go the F2P route.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
Resubbed to a p2p MMO (ESO) and one thing I really like there is no cash shop shite all over the place. That's what I call the real freedom because I pure hate cash shops in my MMO.
Anyone who's spent any time playing a MOBA can easily see within a few minutes that these games are not MMOs of any sort. It's strange and unusual that any gamer would even feel the need or desire to lump MOBAs with MMOs. I've been playing DOTA 2 like crazy lately, this is not an MMO, lol. Yikes.
It is ... if the definition of MMO is continuously broadened.
How about World of Tank? It is listed as a MMO in many places, including many reviews, and yet it has no persistent world. How about Vindictus? How about Marvel Heroes?
MOBA may be a little out there compared to these other games, but it is a continuum, not black & white as many would like it to be. Like it or not, the market and the industry is no longer treating only the "traditional" MMOs as MMOs. Now the term is broadened.
I see some truth here.
For the past years, HR departments have used "We'll call you back" as a statement meaning "we will not call you back".
meanings broaden indeed.
I think that is inevitable for MMOs just because the market has changed so drastically compared to 10 years ago.
And as in COMPLETLY free to play...League of Legends is best example and MMORPG's should start adopting this. Reality is the experienced gamer can enjoy a lot of great games free out there to justify paying for a game these days, especially one with sub attached.
MMORPG's should start adopting a more modern payment model if they want to stay competitive and attractive. Payment models such as adding advertisement ingame that fits for the virtual world. Have system in place where players are welcome to donate if they enjoy the product, but give them limited recognition, like supporter tag on forums, something like Path of Exile does.
Reality is completely free to play is the new player in town and it's taking the market rapidly by surprise. Fact is the bigger the playerbase you attract, the better it is for your product, free advertising through word of mouth and more potential players more potential ways to get $ floating to your product.
So, I won't be surprised at all if the next AAA MMORPG's coming in the next few years come completely free to play. Times are indeed changing and for the better for us the players. I've bought every single expensaion on release for WOW since launch, but it won't be the case anymore.
Bottom line is, why pay to enjoy a game when I'm already enjoying another one for free? The free will always have priority.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but.....
Nothing is free... There is always a price to be paid... You pay for all kinds of things that you don't have a clue about and it doesn't always have to equate to money.
Where do you think all this money to make these games comes from? I'll give you a hint, "The Working Stiff"
It is ... if the definition of MMO is continuously broadened.
Misused, you meant to say misused. Terms gets misused all the time for various reasons. Ignorance, marketing, trolling.
When a term is broadened too much its meaning gets lost and there is no purpose to it anymore. Lets take the term MMO. If you keep broadening it as to include every multiplayer game from 2 to a thousand then there is no point to the term MMO anymore because we already have one for that which is multiplayer. We only add massive in front of multiplayer to help us specify what kind of multiplayer it is.
It is ... if the definition of MMO is continuously broadened.
Misused, you meant to say misused. Terms gets misused all the time for various reasons. Ignorance, marketing, trolling.
When a term is broadened too much its meaning gets lost and there is no purpose to it anymore. Lets take the term MMO. If you keep broadening it as to include every multiplayer game from 2 to a thousand then there is no point to the term MMO anymore because we already have one for that which is multiplayer. We only add massive in front of multiplayer to help us specify what kind of multiplayer it is.
"misused" is just an opinion. If everyone is using it .. it becomes the norm. You can argue to your face blue that calling World of Tanks a MMO is a "misuse" but since everyone is doing it, your complaining won't matter much.
And so what if the meaning is losing a little. It is not like there is a high value attached to a very rigorous definition of a set of entertainment products in the first place. And now it is broadened, although not yet to include all multiplayer games (for example, CoD is still not included), so it still have some meaning.
And, given the market, i suspect that is exactly right .. there is less and less "point" of having MMOs anymore, hence why it is broadened.
It is ... if the definition of MMO is continuously broadened.
Misused, you meant to say misused. Terms gets misused all the time for various reasons. Ignorance, marketing, trolling.
When a term is broadened too much its meaning gets lost and there is no purpose to it anymore. Lets take the term MMO. If you keep broadening it as to include every multiplayer game from 2 to a thousand then there is no point to the term MMO anymore because we already have one for that which is multiplayer. We only add massive in front of multiplayer to help us specify what kind of multiplayer it is.
"misused" is just an opinion. If everyone is using it .. it becomes the norm. You can argue to your face blue that calling World of Tanks a MMO is a "misuse" but since everyone is doing it, your complaining won't matter much.
And so what if the meaning is losing a little. It is not like there is a high value attached to a very rigorous definition of a set of entertainment products in the first place. And now it is broadened, although not yet to include all multiplayer games (for example, CoD is still not included), so it still have some meaning.
And, given the market, i suspect that is exactly right .. there is less and less "point" of having MMOs anymore, hence why it is broadened.
I think "misused" was the wrong word. If everyone is using it... it's usually a sign that it's being "abused". And no, it doesn't make it the norm or make it right.
It is ... if the definition of MMO is continuously broadened.
Misused, you meant to say misused. Terms gets misused all the time for various reasons. Ignorance, marketing, trolling.
When a term is broadened too much its meaning gets lost and there is no purpose to it anymore. Lets take the term MMO. If you keep broadening it as to include every multiplayer game from 2 to a thousand then there is no point to the term MMO anymore because we already have one for that which is multiplayer. We only add massive in front of multiplayer to help us specify what kind of multiplayer it is.
"misused" is just an opinion. If everyone is using it .. it becomes the norm. You can argue to your face blue that calling World of Tanks a MMO is a "misuse" but since everyone is doing it, your complaining won't matter much.
And so what if the meaning is losing a little. It is not like there is a high value attached to a very rigorous definition of a set of entertainment products in the first place. And now it is broadened, although not yet to include all multiplayer games (for example, CoD is still not included), so it still have some meaning.
And, given the market, i suspect that is exactly right .. there is less and less "point" of having MMOs anymore, hence why it is broadened.
I think "misused" was the wrong word. If everyone is using it... it's usually a sign that it's being "abused". And no, it doesn't make it the norm or make it right.
"if everyone is using it" .. by definition it is the norm. And i know you think it is not right. But so? I think it is fine, so does everyone who is using it.
When you can change everyone's usage, let me know, and I will follow suit. Until then, i will go with the common, broadened, usage of the MMO label.
It is ... if the definition of MMO is continuously broadened.
Misused, you meant to say misused. Terms gets misused all the time for various reasons. Ignorance, marketing, trolling.
When a term is broadened too much its meaning gets lost and there is no purpose to it anymore. Lets take the term MMO. If you keep broadening it as to include every multiplayer game from 2 to a thousand then there is no point to the term MMO anymore because we already have one for that which is multiplayer. We only add massive in front of multiplayer to help us specify what kind of multiplayer it is.
"misused" is just an opinion. If everyone is using it .. it becomes the norm. You can argue to your face blue that calling World of Tanks a MMO is a "misuse" but since everyone is doing it, your complaining won't matter much.
And so what if the meaning is losing a little. It is not like there is a high value attached to a very rigorous definition of a set of entertainment products in the first place. And now it is broadened, although not yet to include all multiplayer games (for example, CoD is still not included), so it still have some meaning.
And, given the market, i suspect that is exactly right .. there is less and less "point" of having MMOs anymore, hence why it is broadened.
I think "misused" was the wrong word. If everyone is using it... it's usually a sign that it's being "abused". And no, it doesn't make it the norm or make it right.
"if everyone is using it" .. by definition it is the norm. And i know you think it is not right. But so? I think it is fine, so does everyone who is using it.
When you can change everyone's usage, let me know, and I will follow suit. Until then, i will go with the common, broadened, usage of the MMO label.
I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of people in the english speaking world don't even know what the term "MMO" stands for, so how could it be the norm?
Change everyone's usage? Who is everyone?
So we change a definition because some companies shady marketing practices are abusing the term for monetary gain? (misuse is accidental, abuse is purposely)
Na IMHO It seems to be a very small minority abusing the term.
Comments
I agree that Marvel Heroes in an awesome game, but I just don't see how it's similar (in any aspect) or even measures up to AAA MMORPG's. It's a pretty different beast, albeit an awesome one
You didn't give any reason why my analogy is bad other than it concerned food. Fine apply it to cars if you want or any consumer product for that matter. Fact is that anything has a cost to produce and no business is going to sell at a loss just out of some charitable desire. They need to make a profit to keep the lights on. Selling a high volume cheap product (in game terms LoL) is very different from selling a more expensive to produce product to a smaller group of people (MMOs). You can still make a profit with the latter but you're going to need to charge a higher price to do it.
The OP is really asking for MMOs to stop existing because if people agree with him and will only accept completely free games then devs will simply throw up their hands and make cheap, disposable games that can be supported on that kind of business model.
Even $350 a year is pretty cheap for entertainment. Been to a sporting event lately? Even a movie? $350 doesn't really go very far. Sure I guess you could sit at home and watch netflix all year or run through the same shit in Skyrim you've done 20 times before for cheaper but I much prefer a good MMO to that.
F2P is casual and 9/10 times greedy sub model for mmorpgs. The difference between the f2p model of LoL and MMO's is that MOBAS can make a ton of money off cosmetics where as significantly fewer would spend their money in a f2p MMORPG cash shop period, let alone on cosmetic items hence why they throw in "p2w" purchases. There are some that aren't p2w too, but as a result don't make a lot of money and don't produce content quickly enough or in high enough quantity.
P2P is the only way the industry will evolve, just don't make it a WoW clone.
Played-Everything
Playing-LoL
I would happily pay for a game that I like.
F2P will always have major drawbacks, fx the developers need to earn money on their product. The equation will NEVER add up, just take a look around....
Actually it comes down to development cost. Selling cosmetics is more than enough to cover the costs on MOBAs, not so much on a MMO. MOBAs have only one map and that's pretty much it, the size of one single dungeon on a typical MMO. They don't need a crapton of programmers and artists to design a huge world, various dungeons and all the mechanics on them. A crafting system, quests, modelling countless mobs, bosses, NPCs, armor for every race and sex.
A MOBA can stay afloat very easily with just donations. A triple A MMO cannot.
Why should there be a really free game? Do YOU work for free?
What are the "free" games that make it hard to justify paying? Because i am still a sub paying gamer due to lack of interesting free options. Or the "free" options simply being too expensive to afford for me.
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
This. I think F2P + Cash shop will be the future for many games , also built in ads for real life products and services.
Just look at BF4 In game with ultra settings turned on, and you get the point for ingame ads.
Free email only survives because it is cheap to maintain, and because it generates more revenue than it costs. (Business 101). Google came after the Paid to Free conversion of email (by Yahoo/Hotmail and others). Today's 'free' email still offers paid options, which make them plenty of money every year.
Games are moving to free for the same reason that email did. The high cost of customer acquisition, and the low cost per user (at scale). Free products can lower the cost of customer acquisition for paid products, and in doing so, generate a lot of revenue for low cost (i.e. good ROI).
This. Why does the concept of costs to produce and maintain always escapes people? Ever seen free cars, free TVs? Plus email is used by hundreds of millions of people and how much it costs to maintain it would be stupid to charge for it.
The only difference between paid games and "free" games is you decide when to spend your money.
It is almost a guarantee you WILL spend money on a "free" game that you're investing time in, so really it's not free anymore; you've paid for it in one way or another. Be it a sub, a hero, some cosmetics, extra features, an expansion, some DLC.. whatever.
The market of players who never put a dime into an F2P game they invest more than 30 hours I'd say is very, very small.
Now sure, I've played F2P games I've never spent a penny on but really I didn't last more than 10 hours; so I didn't exactly "play" it, more tested if anything.
I like how companies have put the control back into the players hands; it means they have to work harder for your money now.
It's the illusion of free but a good one none the less.
Free to play games with purely cosmetical cash shop is the future.
Can't wait for an AAA game to pull it off.
F2P is a rather general term when you look at different games using this model. Each one has different methods for implementing their funding method. Most have cash shops, but their implementation varies widely. In fact, so widely, that to date there is no type of unofficial industry standard, which would go a long way in determining whether people like the model or not. For now it is a matter of I like A games F2P model but not B games. (of course this allows for unlimited debate of the forums, so it provides that extra bit of entertainment) Because of this, it will take a while before F2P can be lumped into this broad category if ever. P2P is simple, you pay you play... or is it.
Is P2P dead. Not yet I don't think. In particular, there are many older folks who grew up with this and feel more comfortable with it. In fact, I would hazard a guess that it's a pretty large group, with the resources to pay if they choose. As they begin fading out (hopefully not for a long time), I think F2P will ultimately win the battle.
I self identify as a monkey.
It measures up by being fun, and I prefer to play it than "AAA MMORPGs"?
Similar? It is classified as one .. that is "similar" enough for me.
Nope ..
But not every players have to pay to fund a game. If whales pay, that is enough, and the game is free for a majority of player.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
The reviewer has a mishapen head
Which means his opinion is skewed
...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
Lot of peoples are set. With a definitive answer, unshaken.
I din't pay to play an online game in a long time...I buy games at a discount for my consoles most of the time.
But to say I wouldn't pay? That's quite a statement.
The interest has to be there...and the trust. I wouln't pay $60 to buy a game, even less a monthly subscribtion without a form of trust to have been built first. (I did purchase Mario Cart on released day after all)
Never says never...but with a GF and a job and 3 free Facebooks games, a MMO would have a hard time to get in a casual spot, an even harder time to dislodges the 2 remaining Facebook games so I can have some times to play...a 2 hours game session would be hard to get...a 5? Never says never, but then you have to dislodges also various boardgames.
Would I pay for a monthly sub game? If it provide me enought interest yes...but I don't see that happening in the short terms.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Agreed 100%. I mean sure they'll be subscription MMO's but they will never do as well or have as much retention as F2P games. IMO Subscriptions or P2P MMO's are becoming the new indie MMO's of 10-12 years ago and most High Production quality MMO's will eventually go the F2P route.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
I think that is inevitable for MMOs just because the market has changed so drastically compared to 10 years ago.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but.....
Nothing is free... There is always a price to be paid... You pay for all kinds of things that you don't have a clue about and it doesn't always have to equate to money.
Where do you think all this money to make these games comes from? I'll give you a hint, "The Working Stiff"
The little guy pays for everything.
Always has.... Always will.....
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Misused, you meant to say misused. Terms gets misused all the time for various reasons. Ignorance, marketing, trolling.
When a term is broadened too much its meaning gets lost and there is no purpose to it anymore. Lets take the term MMO. If you keep broadening it as to include every multiplayer game from 2 to a thousand then there is no point to the term MMO anymore because we already have one for that which is multiplayer. We only add massive in front of multiplayer to help us specify what kind of multiplayer it is.
"misused" is just an opinion. If everyone is using it .. it becomes the norm. You can argue to your face blue that calling World of Tanks a MMO is a "misuse" but since everyone is doing it, your complaining won't matter much.
And so what if the meaning is losing a little. It is not like there is a high value attached to a very rigorous definition of a set of entertainment products in the first place. And now it is broadened, although not yet to include all multiplayer games (for example, CoD is still not included), so it still have some meaning.
And, given the market, i suspect that is exactly right .. there is less and less "point" of having MMOs anymore, hence why it is broadened.
I think "misused" was the wrong word. If everyone is using it... it's usually a sign that it's being "abused". And no, it doesn't make it the norm or make it right.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
"if everyone is using it" .. by definition it is the norm. And i know you think it is not right. But so? I think it is fine, so does everyone who is using it.
When you can change everyone's usage, let me know, and I will follow suit. Until then, i will go with the common, broadened, usage of the MMO label.
I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of people in the english speaking world don't even know what the term "MMO" stands for, so how could it be the norm?
Change everyone's usage? Who is everyone?
So we change a definition because some companies shady marketing practices are abusing the term for monetary gain? (misuse is accidental, abuse is purposely)
Na IMHO It seems to be a very small minority abusing the term.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee