Are We in the Age of the MMO-Lite? | MMORPG.com

System · October 23

Are We in the Age of the MMO-Lite? | MMORPG.com

These days, we're seeing smaller scale games make use of MMO features. Are we in the age of the MMO-LIte or is there room enough for both styles of games?

Read the full story here

Angrakhan · October 23

Yes I play far more MMO-lite (MMOL) games than MMO. Granted I say this while I'm currently playing New World Aeternum. But again they've actually rebranded the game as an online action RPG, so there is that. My plan, though, is to stick to the solo and small group content and probably pull the ripcord when I hit end game and the barrier to progress further becomes unrealistic for me as far as time commitment.

Time commitment is probably the biggest reason I shifted to MMOL games. In your typical MMOL the largest contiguous block of time the game demands is about 45 minutes at the absolute peak. With an MMO 45 minutes is just what it takes to put a group together. Nevermind actually running the content (raid). At this point in my life I just cannot commit to what an MMO demands and MMOLs have stepped into the gap to give me an avenue for the co-op gameplay I love without having to sign a marriage covenant with a video game like so many MMOs expect.

Side note The Division wouldn't really work as an MMO. Can you imagine 200 players on the same street taking down any thing that dares spawn? It would go from civilization's last stand to gestapo police state. It wouldn't work.

Elidien_ga · October 23

Angrakhan said:

Yes I play far more MMO-lite (MMOL) games than MMO. Granted I say this while I'm currently playing New World Aeternum. But again they've actually rebranded the game as an online action RPG, so there is that. My plan, though, is to stick to the solo and small group content and probably pull the ripcord when I hit end game and the barrier to progress further becomes unrealistic for me as far as time commitment.

Time commitment is probably the biggest reason I shifted to MMOL games. In your typical MMOL the largest contiguous block of time the game demands is about 45 minutes at the absolute peak. With an MMO 45 minutes is just what it takes to put a group together. Nevermind actually running the content (raid). At this point in my life I just cannot commit to what an MMO demands and MMOLs have stepped into the gap to give me an avenue for the co-op gameplay I love without having to sign a marriage covenant with a video game like so many MMOs expect.

Side note The Division wouldn't really work as an MMO. Can you imagine 200 players on the same street taking down any thing that dares spawn? It would go from civilization's last stand to gestapo police state. It wouldn't work.

This. All the games I tend to play (New World, Conan, Once Human, FO76, etc...) are all "lite" in some way. I just do not have the time like I use too.

Gorwe · October 23

Yes, I believe that a concept of a "Grand MMO" was doomed from the start. When was the last time you heard all elements of an MMO were equally ... "visible" and popular? Then remember the times when people said things like "WAR is a PvP game", "SWTOR and WoW are PvE games" etc. Reducing entire huge experiences to a select few small game modes.

A natural evolution of that is what we are seeing right now. Imo.

Nick_Shively · October 23

One of the original MMO Lite's, Guild Wars, is one of my favorite games of all times. It brought thousands of players together, but open/instanced world content only consisted of a dozen players max. It combined strategy and cooperative elements

Gorwe · October 23

Nick_Shively said:

One of the original MMO Lite's, Guild Wars, is one of my favorite games of all times. It brought thousands of players together, but open/instanced world content only consisted of a dozen players max. It combined strategy and cooperative elements

Such an awesome game, I would really like a remake or some modern version of it.

Valentina · October 23

Yes and I love MMOLite, I think it's more manageable in terms of commitment for your average player, and probably less costly on the development end. I think both styles of MMO's will continue to co-exist, and probably meet in the middle one day as the technology evolves.

cameltosis · October 24

MMO-Lite just means not-an-MMO.

They're just regular multiplayer games. Nothing wrong with that at all, plenty of people love them.

Personally, I don't play them. I play single player games, couch coop games, or massively multiplayer games. Anything inbetween is off the table for me.

With single player and couch coop, I'm in control of the experience. I can play as fast or slow as I want and enjoy everything as my own pace.

With massively multiplayer, there are thousands of players, out of which I am likely to find that small group of people who I enjoy playing with. The persistence and the time involved are required to form those social bonds, so im willing to put up with the short term frustration of playing with strangers for the long term benefit of forming friendships.

With regular multiplayer, i have to deal with the frustration of playing with strangers, but there is rarely the persistence to turn that frustration into friendship. the games are either drop-in-drop out (like the division), so you don't have time to get to know people. Or they are persistent, but small scale (like ark, enshrouded etc) and so the chances of me forming friendships out of such a small group is slim. Conversely, there is a large chance of frustration is even 1 player is a dick....and there's always a dick!

Neoyoshi · October 24

Chasing after trends, it's been a part of this industry and intersects with it all the time, whatever era people wish to call it, i think we've been here since 2010-2011; when the mobile phone craze started.

Tiller · October 24

We have an MMO with NPC as players that calls itself an MMO, auto-path mobile MMOs you can play offline, pay to lose MMOs you can dump thousands into and get nowhere, as well as some in permanent development, and lets not forget battle royales people think are MMOs, so yeah things gone bad.

elric_of_melnibone · October 24

We had Ultima Online, EverQuest, Final Fantasy XI, SWG, Lineage 1+2 and DAoC.

That was the end of the full fledged MMO as far as any golden age is concerned.

The early days of WoW and EQ2 still had a lot to offer fans of the above but it became quickly apparent that it would not be a similar experience long-term. These and a few others were a transition period.

The rest is entirely downhill as far as MMORPG that hits all the classic notes, for better or worse (worse IMO).

KnightFalz · October 24

I don't know if we in the age of MMO-Lites but they seem to have piqued some developer and player interest, at least for now. We'll see how long it lasts.

The more options the better in my view so I see no issue with the trend.

KnightFalz · October 24

cameltosis said:

MMO-Lite just means not-an-MMO.

They're just regular multiplayer games. Nothing wrong with that at all, plenty of people love them.

Personally, I don't play them. I play single player games, couch coop games, or massively multiplayer games. Anything inbetween is off the table for me.

With single player and couch coop, I'm in control of the experience. I can play as fast or slow as I want and enjoy everything as my own pace.

With massively multiplayer, there are thousands of players, out of which I am likely to find that small group of people who I enjoy playing with. The persistence and the time involved are required to form those social bonds, so im willing to put up with the short term frustration of playing with strangers for the long term benefit of forming friendships.

With regular multiplayer, i have to deal with the frustration of playing with strangers, but there is rarely the persistence to turn that frustration into friendship. the games are either drop-in-drop out (like the division), so you don't have time to get to know people. Or they are persistent, but small scale (like ark, enshrouded etc) and so the chances of me forming friendships out of such a small group is slim. Conversely, there is a large chance of frustration is even 1 player is a dick....and there's always a dick!

They aren't just multi-player games. Part of MMO-Lites is having MMORPG elements worked in and not all multi-player games have that.

Sovrath · October 24

Tiller said:

We have an MMO with NPC as players that calls itself an MMO, auto-path mobile MMOs you can play offline, pay to lose MMOs you can dump thousands into and get nowhere, as well as some in permanent development, and lets not forget battle royales people think are MMOs, so yeah things gone bad.

The MMORPG with npc players is just a clever take on a single player game. It has nothing to do with Hong’s “going bad.

good on the one person making it.

cameltosis · October 25

KnightFalz said:

cameltosis said:

MMO-Lite just means not-an-MMO.

They're just regular multiplayer games. Nothing wrong with that at all, plenty of people love them.

Personally, I don't play them. I play single player games, couch coop games, or massively multiplayer games. Anything inbetween is off the table for me.

With single player and couch coop, I'm in control of the experience. I can play as fast or slow as I want and enjoy everything as my own pace.

With massively multiplayer, there are thousands of players, out of which I am likely to find that small group of people who I enjoy playing with. The persistence and the time involved are required to form those social bonds, so im willing to put up with the short term frustration of playing with strangers for the long term benefit of forming friendships.

With regular multiplayer, i have to deal with the frustration of playing with strangers, but there is rarely the persistence to turn that frustration into friendship. the games are either drop-in-drop out (like the division), so you don't have time to get to know people. Or they are persistent, but small scale (like ark, enshrouded etc) and so the chances of me forming friendships out of such a small group is slim. Conversely, there is a large chance of frustration is even 1 player is a dick....and there's always a dick!

They aren't just multi-player games. Part of MMO-Lites is having MMORPG elements worked in and not all multi-player games have that.

Those other features are just RPG features though. The only unique feature is being massively multiplayer, and that feature doesn't exist in "mmo-lite".

maskedweasel · October 25

cameltosis said:

KnightFalz said:

cameltosis said:

MMO-Lite just means not-an-MMO.

They're just regular multiplayer games. Nothing wrong with that at all, plenty of people love them.

Personally, I don't play them. I play single player games, couch coop games, or massively multiplayer games. Anything inbetween is off the table for me.

With single player and couch coop, I'm in control of the experience. I can play as fast or slow as I want and enjoy everything as my own pace.

With massively multiplayer, there are thousands of players, out of which I am likely to find that small group of people who I enjoy playing with. The persistence and the time involved are required to form those social bonds, so im willing to put up with the short term frustration of playing with strangers for the long term benefit of forming friendships.

With regular multiplayer, i have to deal with the frustration of playing with strangers, but there is rarely the persistence to turn that frustration into friendship. the games are either drop-in-drop out (like the division), so you don't have time to get to know people. Or they are persistent, but small scale (like ark, enshrouded etc) and so the chances of me forming friendships out of such a small group is slim. Conversely, there is a large chance of frustration is even 1 player is a dick....and there's always a dick!

They aren't just multi-player games. Part of MMO-Lites is having MMORPG elements worked in and not all multi-player games have that.

Those other features are just RPG features though. The only unique feature is being massively multiplayer, and that feature doesn't exist in "mmo-lite".

I don't think so. When I think of most multiplayer online games, usually they're stuck at 4 player co-op, and rarely shared world, certainly not as persistent. MMOlite is more like 20+ players in a shared world imo. Not specifically like large scale battle arena games.

Lots of features aren't RPG specific like shared world persistence and largescale world bosses. Some mmolites have 50 players, some have more. I think all MMOlites are multiplayer online games but not all multiplayer online games are MMOlite I think when you say MMOlite most people know what you mean, and I think that's kind of the point of the term.

KnightFalz · October 25

cameltosis said:

KnightFalz said:

cameltosis said:

MMO-Lite just means not-an-MMO.

They're just regular multiplayer games. Nothing wrong with that at all, plenty of people love them.

Personally, I don't play them. I play single player games, couch coop games, or massively multiplayer games. Anything inbetween is off the table for me.

With single player and couch coop, I'm in control of the experience. I can play as fast or slow as I want and enjoy everything as my own pace.

With massively multiplayer, there are thousands of players, out of which I am likely to find that small group of people who I enjoy playing with. The persistence and the time involved are required to form those social bonds, so im willing to put up with the short term frustration of playing with strangers for the long term benefit of forming friendships.

With regular multiplayer, i have to deal with the frustration of playing with strangers, but there is rarely the persistence to turn that frustration into friendship. the games are either drop-in-drop out (like the division), so you don't have time to get to know people. Or they are persistent, but small scale (like ark, enshrouded etc) and so the chances of me forming friendships out of such a small group is slim. Conversely, there is a large chance of frustration is even 1 player is a dick....and there's always a dick!

They aren't just multi-player games. Part of MMO-Lites is having MMORPG elements worked in and not all multi-player games have that.

Those other features are just RPG features though. The only unique feature is being massively multiplayer, and that feature doesn't exist in "mmo-lite".

MMORPGs are also just RPG features on a large scale.

There is a huge gap between MMORPGs and co-op games that only support a handful of people at most while not necessarily having any RPG features.

MMO-Lite games fall somewhere within that gap. But if people want to be hung up on that descriptor something else could instead. The game will still be in that middle ground where neither MMORPG or just co-op is fitting.

cheyane · October 25

Everything tries to have an MMO tag... algorithm I guess. They found out it sells better with MMO in front.

Even if players really enjoy playing them and developers are happier managing smaller servers it does not mean acronyms have no meaning.

Just call ii 'multiplayer' without the 'massive'. Massive gives them a cache is why it is used. Dupe people into thinking it's big.

Scot · October 25

The designation MMO-lite is the natural development of MMORPG's being changed over time into lesser games in terms of content and variety of gameplay. So most MMO-lite titles did not crop up, they are a result of processes which began in the golden age of MMORPGs.

Some genre's have developed MMO like elements though or been born from MMORPGs like Survival. Indeed every multiplayer online game has nabbed a MMO like element or two.

Eric20 · October 25

I can definitely see why they would be becoming more popular for folks that don't have the time to commit to full MMOs. I feel fortunate that at 40 I don't have the problem of having to play smaller, less time commitment games exclusively, due to life choices I've made like opting out of family life that so many others seem to desire for some reason.

I play both kinds and feel there is room for both to exist. My favorite games right now are Fallout 76, WoW, and EVE Online. I will also say that despite FO76 having a much smaller player count per session I've never felt alone at all as the world feels very much alive.

Theocritus · October 25

cheyane said:

Everything tries to have an MMO tag... algorithm I guess. They found out it sells better with MMO in front.

Even if players really enjoy playing them and developers are happier managing smaller servers it does not mean acronyms have no meaning.

Just call ii 'multiplayer' without the 'massive'. Massive gives them a cache is why it is used. Dupe people into thinking it's big.

Co-op seems to be the craze last few years....I remember reading reviews on Steam and players will bash almost any game that does not have co-op.

KnightFalz · October 25

cheyane said:

Everything tries to have an MMO tag... algorithm I guess. They found out it sells better with MMO in front.

Even if players really enjoy playing them and developers are happier managing smaller servers it does not mean acronyms have no meaning.

Just call ii 'multiplayer' without the 'massive'. Massive gives them a cache is why it is used. Dupe people into thinking it's big.

When people can't agree on what qualifies for an acronym, which is the case for MMORPG, it has no meaning, just differing opinions as to what it means.

Scot · October 25

KnightFalz said:

When people can't agree on what qualifies for an acronym, which is the case for MMORPG, it has no meaning, just differing opinions as to what it means.

Alternativity there are those of us who do understand what a MMORPG means and the rest of you.

cheyane · October 25

Meanwhile..... WoW has a 90$ mount for its 20th birthday.

cameltosis · October 25

maskedweasel said:

cameltosis said:

KnightFalz said:

cameltosis said:

MMO-Lite just means not-an-MMO.

They're just regular multiplayer games. Nothing wrong with that at all, plenty of people love them.

Personally, I don't play them. I play single player games, couch coop games, or massively multiplayer games. Anything inbetween is off the table for me.

With single player and couch coop, I'm in control of the experience. I can play as fast or slow as I want and enjoy everything as my own pace.

With massively multiplayer, there are thousands of players, out of which I am likely to find that small group of people who I enjoy playing with. The persistence and the time involved are required to form those social bonds, so im willing to put up with the short term frustration of playing with strangers for the long term benefit of forming friendships.

With regular multiplayer, i have to deal with the frustration of playing with strangers, but there is rarely the persistence to turn that frustration into friendship. the games are either drop-in-drop out (like the division), so you don't have time to get to know people. Or they are persistent, but small scale (like ark, enshrouded etc) and so the chances of me forming friendships out of such a small group is slim. Conversely, there is a large chance of frustration is even 1 player is a dick....and there's always a dick!

They aren't just multi-player games. Part of MMO-Lites is having MMORPG elements worked in and not all multi-player games have that.

Those other features are just RPG features though. The only unique feature is being massively multiplayer, and that feature doesn't exist in "mmo-lite".

I don't think so. When I think of most multiplayer online games, usually they're stuck at 4 player co-op, and rarely shared world, certainly not as persistent. MMOlite is more like 20+ players in a shared world imo. Not specifically like large scale battle arena games.

Lots of features aren't RPG specific like shared world persistence and largescale world bosses. Some mmolites have 50 players, some have more. I think all MMOlites are multiplayer online games but not all multiplayer online games are MMOlite I think when you say MMOlite most people know what you mean, and I think that's kind of the point of the term.

But Destiny and The Division are being described as MMO-Lites, yet they don't have persistent worlds, nor do they have many RPG features. They just have character progression and quests, neither of which are exclusive to RPGs and usually involve no actual roleplaying.

Likewise, games like ARK or more recently Enshrouded are sometimes described as MMO-Lite. But they have even less shared features with MMORPGs, whilst they do have persistent worlds. Most of us would just call these games survival boxes, but enough people are calling them MMO-Lite to muddy the waters.

I recognise that not all online multiplayer games are MMO-lites, that wasn't the point of my post. My point was that MMO's only have one unique feature - being massively multiplayer - and so when you remove that feature, you're simply not an MMO and trying to create a link between your non-mmo and an mmo is just wrong. You're just a multiplayer RPG, or a multiplayer shooter, or a multiplayer whatever.

All the other features of an MMORPG existed before MMORPGs did, they're just RPG features.

skeaser · October 26

elric_of_melnibone said:

We had Ultima Online, EverQuest, Final Fantasy XI, SWG, Lineage 1+2 and DAoC.

That was the end of the full fledged MMO as far as any golden age is concerned.

The early days of WoW and EQ2 still had a lot to offer fans of the above but it became quickly apparent that it would not be a similar experience long-term. These and a few others were a transition period.

The rest is entirely downhill as far as MMORPG that hits all the classic notes, for better or worse (worse IMO).

I would argue that the end of the full fledged MMO came with Age of Conan, Warhammer Online, Wildstar, and Aion. I feel like the failure of all these titles killed the attempt to recapture the magic of the games you listed and led us to where we are now where no one is willing to risk the capital to make a true MMO.

Howdy, Stranger!

Are We in the Age of the MMO-Lite? | MMORPG.com

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Are We in the Age of the MMO-Lite? | MMORPG.com

Comments