lol .. talking about flogging a dead horse. People here are still debating what is and is not a MMO?
Just use the game list here. I doubt most gamers care about the minute differences between a MOBA or a "true" (tm) MMO.
I bet when Destiny 2 is released, most MMO sites will "claim it" as their own, since they really need some big exciting new games to talk about. MMO sites may as well embrace everything that is online to survive.
The game list here is wrong, just like Superdata is wrong and just like you are wrong. It's also the duty and moral obligation of older, wiser heads to educate the young and correct them when they need it.
You're welcome.
lol .. so we are just going to ignore you and use the term "MMO" as we see fit. What are you going to do?
How long have people here been clamoring that "the game list is wrong and it will be fixed"? Years. Why do you think you can have any impact in the industry when you cannot even change what is happening in a single website?
Isn't the definition of insanity "keep doing the same thing when it is not working"? I do admire your perseverance though.
Just to add fuel to your crusade ... World of Tanks (an instanced game) is classified as an "action MMO" on this site's game list. Let's the self-righteous sermon begins!
The MMO term is used as people see fit, there's nothing set, there isn't a number that defines it, it's just based on opinions.
Some defend you need +500 people on the same server or even thousands to be one MMO. I'm not playing by that.
The same way Guild Wars 2 manages ~150 players per server instance and it doesn't stop being one MMO, it's no longer only about how many people can be in the same place, at the same time.
Calling a unicycle a multipassenger vehicle does not make it one. They just look like morons who don't know wtf a MMO is.
Well I find it interesting, when we call them morons for the way they describe MOBAs as a category that falls under what is MMO, we are calling morons to who created a professional in-depth study of the MMO/MOBA market.
My question falls, are they really morons or is there logic and reasoning to it?
More and more games use the MMO tag, we look at Ark Survival Evolved and others, we can consider them illegitimate but the definition is being stretched.
Would you consider 5v5 massively multiplayer in any way?
How about 1v1 because they list hearthstone as a MMO.
This is exactly why you can't trust any companies anymore to tell you what genre their game falls under. The only way you can tell is by getting a gameplay preview from a regular player who is not being paid to do the review.
I wouldn't say 'any company' but certainly when it comes to Superdata, you can be sure that any argument based on any of their 'facts' or 'statements' will be fundamentally flawed, if not hillariously so.
When 7/10 games listed are not mmo's on a top 10 mmo chart... I would say it's pretty bad.
Mainstream charts like that don't give a damn what is or what isn't that exact label. It has nothing to do with anything in the land of fandom which is where those labels matter.
It's like getting worked up over some major outlet calling a hardcore band metal. It doesn't matter...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
When 7/10 games listed are not mmo's on a top 10 mmo chart... I would say it's pretty bad.
nah .. i would say it is a time (or way past time) for MMO to change or shrivel up into irrelevance. It is not like most gamers care about MMOs anymore.
"bad" is just a matter of perspective. Certainly it is not "bad" for me.
My definition is if: 1) YOur character exists in that online world PERSISTENTLY--it's not deleted when you logout 2) You're not meeting the same people daily ONLY... depends on size of world and travel speed
I don't agree there needs to be 200+ concurrent players. I think 20 would be fine if it's not the same 20 people every day AND the world isn't very large, so you're meeting them.
Here's the thing. I play Wurm Online and it's an MMO. However, I've had several hour sessions where I didn't meet anybody locally, only saw others in global chat. In fact, my server typically only has 50-100 players daily. If I go and explore, I might meet one or two, since my area isn't highly populated. It might as well be single player during many moments. Some moments it's MMO, like when I went to the Impalong and was surrounded by about 50+ players consistently nearby.
I'd consider Diablo and Diablo II MMO's, BUT since they don't have persistent worlds, I'd distinguish between MMO and and P(ersistant)MMO. I think persistent worlds are more immersive and much more RP-oriented.
@Hawkaya399 - That's the issue. People aren't supposed to be making up their own definitions for these words. It's not supposed to be a slightly different thing to everyone or else the words and phrases are useless.
The accepted definition for MMORPGs is that they are massive in their multiplayer capabilities. The fact that at many times there aren't many people on each Wurm server doesn't matter because they are capable of having hundreds of clients on the same server.
Certain games like some of the larger survival game servers could debatably be classified as an MMO. Diablo is not massive. Not by any stretch of the word massive or of the term MMO. It caps out at a very low lumber of players. You need to be talking at least the capability to have hundreds of players before you can start debatably calling a game an MMO.
The MMO term is used as people see fit, there's nothing set, there isn't a number that defines it, it's just based on opinions.
Some defend you need +500 people on the same server or even thousands to be one MMO. I'm not playing by that.
The same way Guild Wars 2 manages ~150 players per server instance and it doesn't stop being one MMO, it's no longer only about how many people can be in the same place, at the same time.
The definition of massive as it would apply to numbers of people is "exceptionally large."
The word exceptional means "Unusual, not typical."
Statistically something is considered exceptional if it has a chance of 5% or lower of occurring. (Believe me I'm taking college level stats this term and that's a point that is heavily stressed.)
So in order to be massive I would think the minimum criteria we would have to set is within the top 5% in terms of how many simultaneous clients the game can handle.
Certain games like some of the larger survival game servers could debatably be classified as an MMO. Diablo is not massive. Not by any stretch of the word massive or of the term MMO. It caps out at a very low lumber of players. You need to be talking at least the capability to have hundreds of players before you can start debatably calling a game an MMO.
It's not fair to group a game like Diablo with something like Quake. That's my main problem with this I think. It was far from being Quake or Unreal. Why? Because your charater existed in a persistent massive server space along with hundreds of thousands of others. EVery player you met in the lobby or a instance was existing alongside you in that server space. Months or years on your character. The instances may have been small, but in probably every other way it was an MMO.
For me it was an MMO, but its world wasn't persistent. It never felt like a
world. Yes I could make friends and join improvised guilds,
trade, level, craft, pvp, do quests. Yes there was a "server space" with tens or hundreds of thousands of other persistent characters. But the "world" was just an instance. Its
immersion was terrible.
And one other thing. With the way people play MMO's nowadays, it's hard for me to believe you don't notice how instances and soloing have made it less massive. I might argue MMORPG's aren't massive anymore and are really just Diablo disguising themselves in a more persistent world and fake MP features.
THIS is why I look forward to Pantheon and others like it.
It's not fair to group a game like Diablo with something like Quake. That's my main problem with this I think. It was far from being Quake or Unreal. Why? Because your charater existed in a persistent massive server space along with hundreds of thousands of others. EVery player you met in the lobby or a instance was existing alongside you in that server space. Months or years on your character. The instances may have been small, but in probably every other way it was an MMO.
For me it was an MMO, but its world wasn't persistent. It never felt like a
world. Yes I could make friends and join improvised guilds,
trade, level, craft, pvp, do quests. Yes there was a "server space" with tens or hundreds of thousands of other persistent characters. But the "world" was just an instance. Its
immersion was terrible.
And one other thing. With the way people play MMO's nowadays, it's hard for me to believe you don't notice how instances and soloing have made it less massive. I might argue MMORPG's aren't massive anymore and are really just Diablo disguising themselves in a more persistent world and fake MP features.
THIS is why I look forward to Pantheon and others like it.
The reason that is not defined as massive is because a lobby is not a game. A lobby is a glorified chatroom. The game is what happens is when you find a group and actually step out into the game world. So if only 10 people can exist in the same instance of the game world with you then that's a pretty average game size IE: Not Massive.
If hundreds or thousands of players can all inhabit the same game world with you then that is massive.
Edit: I do agree instancing makes the game world less massive. I don't agree that soloing does. When you are running around an open world map there can be dozens, hundreds, or thousands of other players inhabiting the same areas. You may feel kind of alone if the area is large but all those other players are people you can encounter and interact with whether you choose to or not. That's one of the special qualities of MMORPGs.
The definition of massive as it would apply to numbers of people is "exceptionally large."
The word exceptional means "Unusual, not typical."
Statistically something is considered exceptional if it has a chance of 5% or lower of occurring. (Believe me I'm taking college level stats this term and that's a point that is heavily stressed.)
So in order to be massive I would think the minimum criteria we would have to set is within the top 5% in terms of how many simultaneous clients the game can handle.
Games like LoL just don't fit that bill.
A game can still handle 5 thousand players online in the entire game map, and only allow 64 players per server instance of said map.... And there ya go one MMO.
(that's actually the number Life is Feudal MMO has).
People need to adapt to the reality of cloud and more complex network setups within the definition of MMO and stop obsessing with the number of people in the same instance at the same time as what defines it.
The definition of massive as it would apply to numbers of people is "exceptionally large."
The word exceptional means "Unusual, not typical."
Statistically something is considered exceptional if it has a chance of 5% or lower of occurring. (Believe me I'm taking college level stats this term and that's a point that is heavily stressed.)
So in order to be massive I would think the minimum criteria we would have to set is within the top 5% in terms of how many simultaneous clients the game can handle.
Games like LoL just don't fit that bill.
A game can still handle 5 thousand players online in the entire game map, and only allow 64 players per server instance of said map.... And there ya go one MMO.
(that's actually the number Life is Feudal MMO has).
People need to adapt to the reality of cloud and more complex network setups within the definition of MMO and stop obsessing with the number of people in the same instance at the same time as what defines it.
But, by that logic every single online multiplayer ever is an MMO.....which is clearly wrong.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
But, by that logic every single online multiplayer ever is an MMO.....which is clearly wrong.
No, but a game world that can handle 5 THOUSAND players online in a single game world spread across dozens of servers with 64 players online each...
... makes undeniably one MMO.
Sounds to me like you're lowering your expectations in anticipation of what some upcoming game you're a fan of will be able to handle so you can call it an MMO
A server as we understand it is one version of a game world. You don't lump all the WOW servers and call that a single game world.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Sounds to me like you're lowering your expectations in anticipation of what some upcoming game you're a fan of will be able to handle so you can call it an MMO
A server as we understand it is one version of a game world. You don't lump all the WOW servers and call that a single game world.
Perhaps we can start by removing Guild Wars 2 from the MMO genre?
Perhaps we must remove the (in-dev) Life is Feudal MMO from the MMO genre as well?
They clearly aren't MMO's by using the logic of some here: It's all about the number of players per server folks!
But, by that logic every single online multiplayer ever is an MMO.....which is clearly wrong.
No, but a game world that can handle 5 THOUSAND players online in a single game world spread across dozens of servers with 64 players online each...
... makes undeniably one MMO.
Yes, this makes complete sense. LOL, undeniable indeed.
"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
Yes, this makes complete sense. LOL, undeniable indeed.
Is or is it not, Guild Wars 2 one MMO?
Does or doesn't Guild Wars 2 instances its game world on dozens up to hundreds of smaller server instances?
Reply those questions and tell me that doesn't make one MMO.
Have you ever even played GW2 in large events with hundreds of players participating? Besides if you're going to argue this at leastuse the correct terminology: GW2 uses phasing for load balancing... servers are something else altogether.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Have you ever even played GW2 in large events with hundreds of players participating? Besides if you're going to argue this at leastuse the correct terminology: GW2 uses phasing for load balancing... servers are something else altogether.
GW2 doesn't have large events with hundreds of players participating, it's instance cap is around 150 players.
GW2 uses a cloud system they called mega-servers, especially on the world bosses the game can open dozens of instances of the same place to handle the population.
Sounds to me like you're lowering your expectations in anticipation of what some upcoming game you're a fan of will be able to handle so you can call it an MMO
A server as we understand it is one version of a game world. You don't lump all the WOW servers and call that a single game world.
Perhaps we can start by removing Guild Wars 2 from the MMO genre?
Perhaps we must remove the (in-dev) Life is Feudal MMO from the MMO genre as well?
They clearly aren't MMO's by using the logic of some here: It's all about the number of players per server folks!
As I understand it, Life is Feudal is not an MMO as the player cap is 64.
I don't know enough about GW2 to comment there. If me and 100 friends said "lets all meet up at town X", would we be able to traverse the game world and all arrive at that town? Or would we have to exit to a lobby, then select a specific instance from the lobby, then load into that instance / server? Is there a player cap?
Also, head back to the first page and read my first post. I've linked to an article on this site where Richard Garriott (often credited as inventor of the term MMO) specifically says it is all about the number of concurrent users within the same virtual space. Raph Koster also joins in and says much the same thing.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
As I understand it, Life is Feudal is not an MMO as the player cap is 64.
I don't know enough about GW2 to comment there. If me and 100 friends said "lets all meet up at town X", would we be able to traverse the game world and all arrive at that town? Or would we have to exit to a lobby, then select a specific instance from the lobby, then load into that instance / server? Is there a player cap?
Let me see if I can get you to understand my point was about complex network setups making one MMO, this is life is Feudal MMO Map:
49 Servers handling a SINGLE game-world, 64 players per each of those squares, the main map alone at the current cap is +3000 players able to persist on the same map. That makes MMO for me, the Massive amount of players is there, just not in the same exact location at the same exact time.
As for GW2, it has a player cap of around 150, if you join a map with already 100 peeps with other 100 players, they will be cut through 2 instances, you can always open a new fresh instance and make all your players travel to it; that's what we do for organized boss runs like the 3 headed wurm.
As I understand it, Life is Feudal is not an MMO as the player cap is 64.
I don't know enough about GW2 to comment there. If me and 100 friends said "lets all meet up at town X", would we be able to traverse the game world and all arrive at that town? Or would we have to exit to a lobby, then select a specific instance from the lobby, then load into that instance / server? Is there a player cap?
Let me see if I can get you to understand my point was about complex network setups making one MMO, this is life is Feudal MMO Map:
49 Servers handling a SINGLE game-world, 64 players per each of those squares, the main map alone at the current cap is +3000 players able to persist on the same map. That makes MMO for me, the Massive amount of players is there, just not in the same exact location at the same exact time.
As for GW2, it has a player cap of around 150, if you join a map with already 100 peeps with 50 players already on it, they will be cut through 2 instances, you can always open a new fresh instance and make all your players travel to it; that's what we do for organized boss runs like the 3 headed wurm.
OK, first thing then, lets drop the word "server". I don't care about physical servers (hardware wise), that hasn't been a relevant term in the MMO space for 15+ years. When we refer to servers nowadays, what we're actually referring to is a single version of the game world.
E.g. if I log into LotRO, I have to choose a "server" like Laurelin, but Laurelin is actually made up of multiple physical servers.
Second thing then, Life is Feudal. You say the whole map can support 3000 players. However, you also state that each square can only support 64 people. How do the squares relate to the overall map? Can I freely wander from square 1 to square 2? Or do I have to exit square 1, return to a lobby, then join square 2? What happens if square 2 already has 64 players?
If the Life is Feudal map is persistant and I can traverse the whole map, then the game would support 3000 players in the same world / instance and this it would be an MMO.
Update: I've just gone to the Life is Feudal website and it looks like there are two games - "Your Own" which is capped at 64 players and the MMO version, which doesn't look like it has caps but also hasn't released yet. I was unaware that there were two versions of the game, I'd only heard of the first one which definitely isn't an MMO.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
OK, first thing then, lets drop the word "server". I don't care about physical servers (hardware wise), that hasn't been a relevant term in the MMO space for 15+ years. When we refer to servers nowadays, what we're actually referring to is a single version of the game world.
E.g. if I log into LotRO, I have to choose a "server" like Laurelin, but Laurelin is actually made up of multiple physical servers.
Second thing then, Life is Feudal. You say the whole map can support 3000 players. However, you also state that each square can only support 64 people. How do the squares relate to the overall map? Can I freely wander from square 1 to square 2? Or do I have to exit square 1, return to a lobby, then join square 2? What happens if square 2 already has 64 players?
If the Life is Feudal map is persistant and I can traverse the whole map, then the game would support 3000 players in the same world / instance and this it would be an MMO.
Update: I've just gone to the Life is Feudal website and it looks like there are two games - "Your Own" which is capped at 64 players and the MMO version, which doesn't look like it has caps but also hasn't released yet. I was unaware that there were two versions of the game, I'd only heard of the first one which definitely isn't an MMO.
The MMO version is the one with thousands but still has a cap to how many can be in the same place at the same time, it's currently 64. The game world of the LiF MMO is like a normal open-world, you move between servers seamlessly, you can approach the "border" of a server and see the players and buildings on the other side, won't face a wall or loading screens to move servers. I'm not sure what happens when one of the areas is capped, if the game "overflows" (GW2 originally did that).
If we were using that last bit of your previous post, we would have to cut Guild Wars 2 out of the MMO genre because the players don't persist concurrently on the same space due the nature of their instancing. That's why I accept that if you have one single game world where thousands of players can persist with localized player caps (instances) you still have one MMO.
@MaxBacon - LiF is not considered to be an MMO in it's current form. It's a survival game. The MMO is under development.
I'm aware but I'm talking about the LiF MMO actually, already played the closed beta tests and the MMO network setup I described is already functional on them.
Yeah I just read the rest of the posts. That system makes LiF's MMO status debateable. I'm imagining that if people keep trying to have massive battles and being told "You can't move to this area because the server load is too high" it's MMO status is going to come under review. If that doesn't become an issue then it may not.
However debating if only allowing 64 players in the same area in a game that allows for thousands of players is an actual debate with merits on both sides.
Debating if a 5vs5 instanced matched is "Massively Multiplayer" really only has merits on one side. The side that says no.
Comments
How long have people here been clamoring that "the game list is wrong and it will be fixed"? Years. Why do you think you can have any impact in the industry when you cannot even change what is happening in a single website?
Isn't the definition of insanity "keep doing the same thing when it is not working"? I do admire your perseverance though.
Just to add fuel to your crusade ... World of Tanks (an instanced game) is classified as an "action MMO" on this site's game list. Let's the self-righteous sermon begins!
Some defend you need +500 people on the same server or even thousands to be one MMO. I'm not playing by that.
The same way Guild Wars 2 manages ~150 players per server instance and it doesn't stop being one MMO, it's no longer only about how many people can be in the same place, at the same time.
It's like getting worked up over some major outlet calling a hardcore band metal. It doesn't matter...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
"bad" is just a matter of perspective. Certainly it is not "bad" for me.
1) YOur character exists in that online world PERSISTENTLY--it's not deleted when you logout
2) You're not meeting the same people daily ONLY... depends on size of world and travel speed
I don't agree there needs to be 200+ concurrent players. I think 20 would be fine if it's not the same 20 people every day AND the world isn't very large, so you're meeting them.
Here's the thing. I play Wurm Online and it's an MMO. However, I've had several hour sessions where I didn't meet anybody locally, only saw others in global chat. In fact, my server typically only has 50-100 players daily. If I go and explore, I might meet one or two, since my area isn't highly populated. It might as well be single player during many moments. Some moments it's MMO, like when I went to the Impalong and was surrounded by about 50+ players consistently nearby.
I'd consider Diablo and Diablo II MMO's, BUT since they don't have persistent worlds, I'd distinguish between MMO and and P(ersistant)MMO. I think persistent worlds are more immersive and much more RP-oriented.
The accepted definition for MMORPGs is that they are massive in their multiplayer capabilities. The fact that at many times there aren't many people on each Wurm server doesn't matter because they are capable of having hundreds of clients on the same server.
Certain games like some of the larger survival game servers could debatably be classified as an MMO. Diablo is not massive. Not by any stretch of the word massive or of the term MMO. It caps out at a very low lumber of players. You need to be talking at least the capability to have hundreds of players before you can start debatably calling a game an MMO.
The word exceptional means "Unusual, not typical."
Statistically something is considered exceptional if it has a chance of 5% or lower of occurring. (Believe me I'm taking college level stats this term and that's a point that is heavily stressed.)
So in order to be massive I would think the minimum criteria we would have to set is within the top 5% in terms of how many simultaneous clients the game can handle.
Games like LoL just don't fit that bill.
For me it was an MMO, but its world wasn't persistent. It never felt like a world. Yes I could make friends and join improvised guilds, trade, level, craft, pvp, do quests. Yes there was a "server space" with tens or hundreds of thousands of other persistent characters. But the "world" was just an instance. Its immersion was terrible.
And one other thing. With the way people play MMO's nowadays, it's hard for me to believe you don't notice how instances and soloing have made it less massive. I might argue MMORPG's aren't massive anymore and are really just Diablo disguising themselves in a more persistent world and fake MP features.
THIS is why I look forward to Pantheon and others like it.
If hundreds or thousands of players can all inhabit the same game world with you then that is massive.
Edit: I do agree instancing makes the game world less massive. I don't agree that soloing does. When you are running around an open world map there can be dozens, hundreds, or thousands of other players inhabiting the same areas. You may feel kind of alone if the area is large but all those other players are people you can encounter and interact with whether you choose to or not. That's one of the special qualities of MMORPGs.
A game can still handle 5 thousand players online in the entire game map, and only allow 64 players per server instance of said map.... And there ya go one MMO.
(that's actually the number Life is Feudal MMO has).
People need to adapt to the reality of cloud and more complex network setups within the definition of MMO and stop obsessing with the number of people in the same instance at the same time as what defines it.
... makes undeniably one MMO.
A server as we understand it is one version of a game world. You don't lump all the WOW servers and call that a single game world.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Perhaps we must remove the (in-dev) Life is Feudal MMO from the MMO genre as well?
They clearly aren't MMO's by using the logic of some here: It's all about the number of players per server folks!
"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
Does or doesn't Guild Wars 2 instances its game world on dozens up to hundreds of smaller server instances?
Reply those questions and tell me that doesn't make one MMO.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
GW2 uses a cloud system they called mega-servers, especially on the world bosses the game can open dozens of instances of the same place to handle the population.
I don't know enough about GW2 to comment there. If me and 100 friends said "lets all meet up at town X", would we be able to traverse the game world and all arrive at that town? Or would we have to exit to a lobby, then select a specific instance from the lobby, then load into that instance / server? Is there a player cap?
Also, head back to the first page and read my first post. I've linked to an article on this site where Richard Garriott (often credited as inventor of the term MMO) specifically says it is all about the number of concurrent users within the same virtual space. Raph Koster also joins in and says much the same thing.
49 Servers handling a SINGLE game-world, 64 players per each of those squares, the main map alone at the current cap is +3000 players able to persist on the same map. That makes MMO for me, the Massive amount of players is there, just not in the same exact location at the same exact time.
As for GW2, it has a player cap of around 150, if you join a map with already 100 peeps with other 100 players, they will be cut through 2 instances, you can always open a new fresh instance and make all your players travel to it; that's what we do for organized boss runs like the 3 headed wurm.
E.g. if I log into LotRO, I have to choose a "server" like Laurelin, but Laurelin is actually made up of multiple physical servers.
Second thing then, Life is Feudal. You say the whole map can support 3000 players. However, you also state that each square can only support 64 people. How do the squares relate to the overall map? Can I freely wander from square 1 to square 2? Or do I have to exit square 1, return to a lobby, then join square 2? What happens if square 2 already has 64 players?
If the Life is Feudal map is persistant and I can traverse the whole map, then the game would support 3000 players in the same world / instance and this it would be an MMO.
Update: I've just gone to the Life is Feudal website and it looks like there are two games - "Your Own" which is capped at 64 players and the MMO version, which doesn't look like it has caps but also hasn't released yet. I was unaware that there were two versions of the game, I'd only heard of the first one which definitely isn't an MMO.
The MMO version is the one with thousands but still has a cap to how many can be in the same place at the same time, it's currently 64. The game world of the LiF MMO is like a normal open-world, you move between servers seamlessly, you can approach the "border" of a server and see the players and buildings on the other side, won't face a wall or loading screens to move servers. I'm not sure what happens when one of the areas is capped, if the game "overflows" (GW2 originally did that).
If we were using that last bit of your previous post, we would have to cut Guild Wars 2 out of the MMO genre because the players don't persist concurrently on the same space due the nature of their instancing. That's why I accept that if you have one single game world where thousands of players can persist with localized player caps (instances) you still have one MMO.
However debating if only allowing 64 players in the same area in a game that allows for thousands of players is an actual debate with merits on both sides.
Debating if a 5vs5 instanced matched is "Massively Multiplayer" really only has merits on one side. The side that says no.