Definitely an issue with the thread title vs the body.
You use MMO in title and MMORPG in the body. There are many MMOs but not all are MMORPGs. RPG denotes a type of MMO.
Multiplayer in MOBA is different than Massively Multiplayer in MMO or it would be called MMOBA. You people overthink the shit out of everything when the answer is right in front of your faces. MMO suggests some significant ability to interact within the main portion of the game with a massive amount of players.
What keeps MMORPGs an actual MMO is entirely another matter as discussed in another recent thread.
This website also admittedly discusses many types of online and RPG-like games despite their name.
Definitely an issue with the thread title vs the body.
You use MMO in title and MMORPG in the body. There are many MMOs but not all are MMORPGs. RPG denotes a type of MMO.
Multiplayer in MOBA is different than Massively Multiplayer in MMO or it would be called MMOBA. You people overthink the shit out of everything when the answer is right in front of your faces. MMO suggests some significant ability to interact within the main portion of the game with a massive amount of players.
What keeps MMORPGs an actual MMO is entirely another matter as discussed in another recent thread.
This website also admittedly discusses many types of online and RPG-like games despite their name.
Yes, some FPS games can be called MMOFPS (like Planetside to mention one) but so what? Mobas are not massive and therefor not MMOs. We can all continue to discuss if a massive FPS games with many players are a MMOFPS or not (yeah, probably is) but that has zero to do with the topic.
8.6% of the people here are unsure or disagree and think a a few players in a match make the game "massive" while over 90% don't think so and we already discussed more then enough, by now it is just repeating of the same argument so I think the discussion is over.
Now, in number of people playing them I think we all agree that Lol for instance indeed is "massive", heck, it is way larger even but it is not the massive we are talking about here.
Maybe we should have a new poll: Are MMORPGs still Massive?
Think.... The popularity of soloing, instagrouping and instances, and being only a few examples. Massive is inconvenient.
On the Diablo thing, I'm resigned to concluding it was MO, not MMO. But that's different from just M. The distinction for me is the fact Battlenet characters were all saved on Battlenet servers and they were mostly cheat/hack safe. By contrast, in traditional multiplayer games you'd play on different servers with different rulesets and cheating was easier. There also was robust support for a main lobby chat and persistent player interaction. (During development, they almost implemented guilds with a guild instance.) Most modern multiplayer games are now MO, by my estimation. I also think Diablo was a major part of introducing many gamers to MMORPG-lite features.
While I've argued the fact that MMOs were initially launched with 100's or 1000's of players online, on the same server at one time. One has to question, is that even relevant or does it even matter? We never see all 100 or 1000 players. I've played sandbox survival games and got the same amount of player interaction that I had when I played WoW. So when 50-100 players per server can simulate the same degree of social interaction as a game with 1000-5000 players per server, I no longer feel the need to care what depicts an MMO.
This hinges on a question of game design.
"Are the devs making a game that takes advantage if the platform's unique values?"
In the case of many MMOs, they are not. A shared world space alone does not tend to contribute enough of a difference to the user experience to warrant being an MMO. Add to that a very linearly focused questing system or solo-minded gameplay in general, and you basically just have "extra NPCs" running about that happen to be humans.
If the games were to leverage things that require heavy interaction, or use numbers to directly affect user experiences, then it develops a better meaning. Titles like BDO, Planetside, and Archeage do have more merit in existing as an MMO because of that, but at the same time they do so by being a directly competitive user experience.
Collaborative user experiences require a bit more thought into how they can be done to incorporate a breadth of users into the experience and make it meaningful. This would require a different approach to be taken when designing quests, narrative, dungeons and enemies, bosses, and even gameplay activities like combat, crafting, and more. It's a fundamental redesign of a game for it to leverage massive player numbers as a meaningful part of it's experience.
And most studios do not develop the titles that way. Most are a more classical experience refitted into a massively multiplayer world, which has plenty of problems on and of itself.
While I've argued the fact that MMOs were initially launched with 100's or 1000's of players online, on the same server at one time. One has to question, is that even relevant or does it even matter? We never see all 100 or 1000 players. I've played sandbox survival games and got the same amount of player interaction that I had when I played WoW. So when 50-100 players per server can simulate the same degree of social interaction as a game with 1000-5000 players per server, I no longer feel the need to care what depicts an MMO.
As @Limnic states, it all comes down to the games design as well as personal preference for game styles.
Being massively-multiplayer is literally the only unique selling point of the genre, but very few devs bother to design content and mechanics around being an MMO, and even when they attempt to do so, they are usually let down by the engine.
For me, it still matters a great deal.
I firmly believe that shared, social experiences are better than solo experiences, so I'm a big fan of grouping up for content as well as mass pvp. This sort of gameplay simply isn't possible without 1000s of people on my server, unless you are on a private server where you know everybody in advance and can co-ordinate playtimes.
But, when I play an MMO, I am a leader, so I end up having a lot of social experiences with a hell of a lot of people. I have my guild with typically 50-100 active players. To reach that number, I probably spoke to or recruited 500-1000 people, because finding the right fit is hard plus a lot of players simply quit the game. I then have a lot of guild-to-guild interaction: friendly competitions to speed run stuff or complete raids first, organising server events, sparring competitions etc. Then I have pugging - as I'm leading, I'm not afraid to form groups myself so I would meet 100s of people through pugging every month. Then there is pvp - even if I'm solo, I'm surrounded by loads of friendlies and fighting loads of enemies. It may be small scale like in SW:TOR battlegrounds, mid scale like LotRO's ettens, or large scale like WAR's pvp lakes.
I realise I probably have a load more social interaction than most people, but then my socialness pays off for the people around me - the pugs get to run group content with a willing leader, my guild gets organised events as well as extra "content" in the form of server events / server competitions etc. PvPers get me to support or fight against.
None of that is possible if numbers are restricted. Once you start restricting numbers, emergent gameplay diminishes and you're left with just content provided by the devs. If that content happens to be group based, you best hope you get lucky and have other people online. Even in games like LotRO or SW:TOR at their peak with 3000+ online, it was still a challenge just getting a group together for world group content (heroics in swtor?).
So, yeh, all depends on your preferences. There is a very real need in the market place for MMOs and amazing business opportunities for the first game to pull it off properly. It just may not be something that you personally are interested in, it probably isn't even something the majority are interested in (yet), but the need is there.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
While I've argued the fact that MMOs were initially launched with 100's or 1000's of players online, on the same server at one time. One has to question, is that even relevant or does it even matter? We never see all 100 or 1000 players. I've played sandbox survival games and got the same amount of player interaction that I had when I played WoW. So when 50-100 players per server can simulate the same degree of social interaction as a game with 1000-5000 players per server, I no longer feel the need to care what depicts an MMO.
Many MMORPGs use megaservers now anyways so you don't get the same community feeling today as back in the late 90s but you certainly see many players there. Heck, a few MMOs have zergs with more then 100 people rather often.
massive
[mas-iv]
Spell Syllables
adjective
1.
consisting of or forming a large mass; bulky and heavy:
massive columns.
2.
large and heavy-looking:
a massive forehead.
3.
large in scale, amount, or degree:
a massive breakdown in communications; massive reductions inspending.
4.
solid or substantial; great or imposing:
massive erudition.
5.
Mineralogy. having no outward crystal form, although sometimescrystalline in internal structure.
Personally I think a 100 players in a persitant zone still is a rather great number but I am far less certain about 50. Also, I feel that a MMORPG needs more players then a MMOFPS, you do after all have a rather different interaction with people in a RPG then a FPS game and therefor need more people for it to be "massive".
You people overthink the shit out of everything when the answer is right in front of your faces. MMO suggests some significant ability to interact within the main portion of the game with a massive amount of players.
This guy pretty much nail it. Games such as world of tanks, or game publisher like to call their games MMO because it suggest it can be played by large number of people.
They do it for marketing reason because it sounds so much better if they use the word massively.
While I've argued the fact that MMOs were initially launched with 100's or 1000's of players online, on the same server at one time. One has to question, is that even relevant or does it even matter? We never see all 100 or 1000 players. I've played sandbox survival games and got the same amount of player interaction that I had when I played WoW. So when 50-100 players per server can simulate the same degree of social interaction as a game with 1000-5000 players per server, I no longer feel the need to care what depicts an MMO.
Clearly it does not matter to this website which classify non-massive games as MMOs.
Clearly it does not matter to superdata and newszoo which game companies buy their data from.
Clearly it does not matter to most gamers because there does not seem to be a huge backlash or boycott.
Clearly it does not matter to many game companies which use the term MMO for marketing.
While I've argued the fact that MMOs were initially launched with 100's or 1000's of players online, on the same server at one time. One has to question, is that even relevant or does it even matter? We never see all 100 or 1000 players. I've played sandbox survival games and got the same amount of player interaction that I had when I played WoW. So when 50-100 players per server can simulate the same degree of social interaction as a game with 1000-5000 players per server, I no longer feel the need to care what depicts an MMO.
Clearly it does not matter to this website which classify non-massive games as MMOs.
Clearly it does not matter to superdata and newszoo which game companies buy their data from.
Clearly it does not matter to most gamers because there does not seem to be a huge backlash or boycott.
Clearly it does not matter to many game companies which use the term MMO for marketing.
It's also painfully clear that they are wrong. Using things like actual facts.
MOBAs are not a sub genre of MMO they came from warcraft/starcraft which are RTS games.
While I've argued the fact that MMOs were initially launched with 100's or 1000's of players online, on the same server at one time. One has to question, is that even relevant or does it even matter? We never see all 100 or 1000 players. I've played sandbox survival games and got the same amount of player interaction that I had when I played WoW. So when 50-100 players per server can simulate the same degree of social interaction as a game with 1000-5000 players per server, I no longer feel the need to care what depicts an MMO.
Clearly it does not matter to this website which classify non-massive games as MMOs.
Clearly it does not matter to superdata and newszoo which game companies buy their data from.
Clearly it does not matter to most gamers because there does not seem to be a huge backlash or boycott.
Clearly it does not matter to many game companies which use the term MMO for marketing.
It does matter to this website - they've stated they are only covering other genres in order to beef up traffic because the MMO genre is in decline
It does matter to Superdata - I have contacted them in the past (about a year ago) to ask them for clarification on their incorrect usage of the term MMO. They said that the free stuff they pump out is inconsequential and mostly used for marketing, but that if I purchased their report I would see much better categorisation (he didn't respond when I asked for specifics though, so take this with a pinch of salt)
It does matter to gamers - those of us within the MMO community do backlash when things are mislabelled - just look at any review of a non-mmo game here or on MOP or other sites. We do care, we do speak out.
It does matter to game companies - the overwhelming majority go to great lengths to avoid calling their game an MMO. They know the score, they know the genres and they tend to get it right.
It really is only the media that gets it consistently wrong and even then, the specialist media (like this site) acknowledges that they get it deliberately wrong in order to generate traffic.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
It does matter to this website - they've stated they are only covering other genres in order to beef up traffic because the MMO genre is in decline
If it does, why do they classify WoT as, and i quote, a "action MMO". Check their game list. It is one thing to cover other genres. It is another to put MMO labels on them.
BTW, don't tell me they will change it. Because I have been hearing that for years.
It does matter to this website - they've stated they are only covering other genres in order to beef up traffic because the MMO genre is in decline
If it does, why do they classify WoT as, and i quote, a "action MMO". Check their game list. It is one thing to cover other genres. It is another to put MMO labels on them.
BTW, don't tell me they will change it. Because I have been hearing that for years.
It was an editorial choice (I think Bill even stated it at some point on these forums)
The genre was declining, traffic was declining, therefore money for this site was declining.
The choice is therefore "admit the genre is in decline and cover other genres too" or "mislabel other genres in order to justify covering them". Bill chose the latter.
On the first page of this thread, I linked to the article where the MMORPG.com staff debated the term "MMO". Have a read through it. They basically admit that they don't care what the term actually means, some of them admit that they don't know what it means, and most of them seem to settle on "i don't care, as long as it is a good game and it's online".
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
It does matter to this website - they've stated they are only covering other genres in order to beef up traffic because the MMO genre is in decline
If it does, why do they classify WoT as, and i quote, a "action MMO". Check their game list. It is one thing to cover other genres. It is another to put MMO labels on them.
BTW, don't tell me they will change it. Because I have been hearing that for years.
I don't think the problem is this site. WoT self proclaimed to be an action mmo. And this site and other site just use information that are given to them.
It does matter to this website - they've stated they are only covering other genres in order to beef up traffic because the MMO genre is in decline
If it does, why do they classify WoT as, and i quote, a "action MMO". Check their game list. It is one thing to cover other genres. It is another to put MMO labels on them.
BTW, don't tell me they will change it. Because I have been hearing that for years.
I don't think the problem is this site. WoT self proclaimed to be an action mmo. And this site and other site just use information that are given to them.
Which makes my point.
It does not matter to neither this site, nor the company who made WoT.
The choice is therefore "admit the genre is in decline and cover other genres too" or "mislabel other genres in order to justify covering them". Bill chose the latter.
Which made my point. It does not matter to Bill .. at least not enough so that he can cover other stuff.
You are basically explaining why it does not matter enough to him. Thank you!
It does matter to this website - they've stated they are only covering other genres in order to beef up traffic because the MMO genre is in decline
If it does, why do they classify WoT as, and i quote, a "action MMO". Check their game list. It is one thing to cover other genres. It is another to put MMO labels on them.
BTW, don't tell me they will change it. Because I have been hearing that for years.
I don't think the problem is this site. WoT self proclaimed to be an action mmo. And this site and other site just use information that are given to them.
Which makes my point.
It does not matter to neither this site, nor the company who made WoT.
Of course it matters. World of tanks say anything to get people to play their games. They purposely misuse terms to make them sound better.
It's like the advertisement this site have on tera self proclaimed to have 27 million players or maplestory having 100 millions. When their active players probably no where close.
It does matter to this website - they've stated they are only covering other genres in order to beef up traffic because the MMO genre is in decline
If it does, why do they classify WoT as, and i quote, a "action MMO". Check their game list. It is one thing to cover other genres. It is another to put MMO labels on them.
BTW, don't tell me they will change it. Because I have been hearing that for years.
It was an editorial choice (I think Bill even stated it at some point on these forums)
The genre was declining, traffic was declining, therefore money for this site was declining.
The choice is therefore "admit the genre is in decline and cover other genres too" or "mislabel other genres in order to justify covering them". Bill chose the latter.
On the first page of this thread, I linked to the article where the MMORPG.com staff debated the term "MMO". Have a read through it. They basically admit that they don't care what the term actually means, some of them admit that they don't know what it means, and most of them seem to settle on "i don't care, as long as it is a good game and it's online".
What makes you think this site purposely mislabel genre to justify covering them.
The answer is probably as silly as someone submit a request to post the game WoT. This site didn't labeled it mmo. The person submiting the request did.
It does not matter to neither this site, nor the company who made WoT.
Of course it matters. World of tanks say anything to get people to play their games. They purposely misuse terms to make them sound better.
It's like the advertisement this site have on tera self proclaimed to have 27 million players or maplestory having 100 millions. When their active players probably no where close.
We are not even talking about the same thing. Let me rephrase. I guess the reference to "it" get lost in the translation.
The idea of massively multiplayer does NOT matter to this site, nor the company who make WoT, in their classification of WoT. Better? Any disagreement?
The answer is probably as silly as someone submit a request to post the game WoT. This site didn't labeled it mmo. The person submiting the request did.
If that is the case, this site certainly does not care enough to correct the person who submitted the label.
Why would they? It is not like "massively multiplayer" is a hot concept that gamers care a lot about anymore.
It does not matter to neither this site, nor the company who made WoT.
Of course it matters. World of tanks say anything to get people to play their games. They purposely misuse terms to make them sound better.
It's like the advertisement this site have on tera self proclaimed to have 27 million players or maplestory having 100 millions. When their active players probably no where close.
We are not even talking about the same thing. Let me rephrase. I guess the reference to "it" get lost in the translation.
The idea of massively multiplayer does NOT matter to this site, nor the company who make WoT, in their classification of WoT. Better? Any disagreement?
All I'm saying is the only reason this argument even start is game company don't want to call their own game a cheap lobby base game which can't even be played by many at the same time so they really like to use the word massively or large scale in their advertisement to draw people to play their game.
Which is precisely the reason other thread even started. Another game Kirita online self proclaim to be mmorpg when there isn't anything massive about it.
It's not even about the terminology mmo. Because if you read their advertisement in other language, they'll still call their game large scale multiplayer online game, when there is nothing large scale about them.
All I'm saying is the only reason this argument even start is game company don't want to call their own game a cheap lobby base game which can't even be played by many at the same time so they really like to use the word massively or large scale in their advertisement to draw people to play their game.
and i am saying aside from a few here on a crusade, most gamers don't care whether MMO label is accurate or not.
And oh, let's also throw in websites op too. Basically, aside from a few people here who cannot stand it, the world has move on from the genre, and don't care much about what is and what is not called a MMO.
The amusing thing is to how the crusade still goes on when people here know how futile it is.
All I'm saying is the only reason this argument even start is game company don't want to call their own game a cheap lobby base game which can't even be played by many at the same time so they really like to use the word massively or large scale in their advertisement to draw people to play their game.
and i am saying aside from a few here on a crusade, most gamers don't care whether MMO label is accurate or not.
And oh, let's also throw in websites op too. Basically, aside from a few people here who cannot stand it, the world has move on from the genre, and don't care much about what is and what is not called a MMO.
The amusing thing is to how the crusade still goes on when people here know how futile it is.
I agree that the world has moved on from the genre - actually MMOs are a dying breed and big developers want nothing to do with it any more.
That's not a reason to change the definition of the genre, especially as "MMO" isn't actually a genre per se, it just describes the number of concurrent gamers within a virtual space. There is such a wide variety of gameplay on offer from MMOs, the only common trait is the number of players.
Also, it's not a crusade. The only people that consistently get it wrong are media outlets (who admit to getting it wrong), people outside the genre who read those media outlets (who don't care) and trolls like you (who don't care, you just enjoy the banter).
I also admit that we are unlikely to change anything. Within a small community like this one, we might be able to convince Bill to update the genre labels of the games list, but in the wider world the media doesn't give a shit what we think.
The only thing that will actually make a difference is a resurgence in actual MMOs. All it would take is 1 or 2 new, big MMOs to be released that capture the publics interest. A few trailers of 500v500 battles, or a time lapse of 200 people building a city. Hell, lets have a new Call of Duty that supports 300 v 300 v 300 battles that last 1 hour each. That would be an MMO, albeit of a variety never seen before.
Once we have some games that actually reinforce the purpose of an MMO and spell it out, everyone else will "get it" and this debate will disappear.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Comments
You use MMO in title and MMORPG in the body. There are many MMOs but not all are MMORPGs. RPG denotes a type of MMO.
Multiplayer in MOBA is different than Massively Multiplayer in MMO or it would be called MMOBA. You people overthink the shit out of everything when the answer is right in front of your faces. MMO suggests some significant ability to interact within the main portion of the game with a massive amount of players.
What keeps MMORPGs an actual MMO is entirely another matter as discussed in another recent thread.
This website also admittedly discusses many types of online and RPG-like games despite their name.
You stay sassy!
8.6% of the people here are unsure or disagree and think a a few players in a match make the game "massive" while over 90% don't think so and we already discussed more then enough, by now it is just repeating of the same argument so I think the discussion is over.
Now, in number of people playing them I think we all agree that Lol for instance indeed is "massive", heck, it is way larger even but it is not the massive we are talking about here.
Think.... The popularity of soloing, instagrouping and instances, and being only a few examples. Massive is inconvenient.
On the Diablo thing, I'm resigned to concluding it was MO, not MMO. But that's different from just M. The distinction for me is the fact Battlenet characters were all saved on Battlenet servers and they were mostly cheat/hack safe. By contrast, in traditional multiplayer games you'd play on different servers with different rulesets and cheating was easier. There also was robust support for a main lobby chat and persistent player interaction. (During development, they almost implemented guilds with a guild instance.) Most modern multiplayer games are now MO, by my estimation. I also think Diablo was a major part of introducing many gamers to MMORPG-lite features.
Guild Wars 1/2 have guild halls:
https://diablo2.diablowiki.net/Archives:_Guild_Halls
"Are the devs making a game that takes advantage if the platform's unique values?"
In the case of many MMOs, they are not. A shared world space alone does not tend to contribute enough of a difference to the user experience to warrant being an MMO. Add to that a very linearly focused questing system or solo-minded gameplay in general, and you basically just have "extra NPCs" running about that happen to be humans.
If the games were to leverage things that require heavy interaction, or use numbers to directly affect user experiences, then it develops a better meaning. Titles like BDO, Planetside, and Archeage do have more merit in existing as an MMO because of that, but at the same time they do so by being a directly competitive user experience.
Collaborative user experiences require a bit more thought into how they can be done to incorporate a breadth of users into the experience and make it meaningful. This would require a different approach to be taken when designing quests, narrative, dungeons and enemies, bosses, and even gameplay activities like combat, crafting, and more. It's a fundamental redesign of a game for it to leverage massive player numbers as a meaningful part of it's experience.
And most studios do not develop the titles that way. Most are a more classical experience refitted into a massively multiplayer world, which has plenty of problems on and of itself.
Being massively-multiplayer is literally the only unique selling point of the genre, but very few devs bother to design content and mechanics around being an MMO, and even when they attempt to do so, they are usually let down by the engine.
For me, it still matters a great deal.
I firmly believe that shared, social experiences are better than solo experiences, so I'm a big fan of grouping up for content as well as mass pvp. This sort of gameplay simply isn't possible without 1000s of people on my server, unless you are on a private server where you know everybody in advance and can co-ordinate playtimes.
But, when I play an MMO, I am a leader, so I end up having a lot of social experiences with a hell of a lot of people. I have my guild with typically 50-100 active players. To reach that number, I probably spoke to or recruited 500-1000 people, because finding the right fit is hard plus a lot of players simply quit the game. I then have a lot of guild-to-guild interaction: friendly competitions to speed run stuff or complete raids first, organising server events, sparring competitions etc. Then I have pugging - as I'm leading, I'm not afraid to form groups myself so I would meet 100s of people through pugging every month. Then there is pvp - even if I'm solo, I'm surrounded by loads of friendlies and fighting loads of enemies. It may be small scale like in SW:TOR battlegrounds, mid scale like LotRO's ettens, or large scale like WAR's pvp lakes.
I realise I probably have a load more social interaction than most people, but then my socialness pays off for the people around me - the pugs get to run group content with a willing leader, my guild gets organised events as well as extra "content" in the form of server events / server competitions etc. PvPers get me to support or fight against.
None of that is possible if numbers are restricted. Once you start restricting numbers, emergent gameplay diminishes and you're left with just content provided by the devs. If that content happens to be group based, you best hope you get lucky and have other people online. Even in games like LotRO or SW:TOR at their peak with 3000+ online, it was still a challenge just getting a group together for world group content (heroics in swtor?).
So, yeh, all depends on your preferences. There is a very real need in the market place for MMOs and amazing business opportunities for the first game to pull it off properly. It just may not be something that you personally are interested in, it probably isn't even something the majority are interested in (yet), but the need is there.
massive
Personally I think a 100 players in a persitant zone still is a rather great number but I am far less certain about 50. Also, I feel that a MMORPG needs more players then a MMOFPS, you do after all have a rather different interaction with people in a RPG then a FPS game and therefor need more people for it to be "massive".
They do it for marketing reason because it sounds so much better if they use the word massively.
Clearly it does not matter to this website which classify non-massive games as MMOs.
Clearly it does not matter to superdata and newszoo which game companies buy their data from.
Clearly it does not matter to most gamers because there does not seem to be a huge backlash or boycott.
Clearly it does not matter to many game companies which use the term MMO for marketing.
MOBAs are not a sub genre of MMO they came from warcraft/starcraft which are RTS games.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplayer_online_battle_arena
5v5 is not massive. The meaning for massive has not changed in society at all. Nobody would call warcraft/starcraft MMOs.
This is as much a debate as "is water wet" and your side is saying water is not wet.
Clearly it doesn't matter to you that they are wrong.
Clearly the term MMO is being used incorrectly.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/It does matter to Superdata - I have contacted them in the past (about a year ago) to ask them for clarification on their incorrect usage of the term MMO. They said that the free stuff they pump out is inconsequential and mostly used for marketing, but that if I purchased their report I would see much better categorisation (he didn't respond when I asked for specifics though, so take this with a pinch of salt)
It does matter to gamers - those of us within the MMO community do backlash when things are mislabelled - just look at any review of a non-mmo game here or on MOP or other sites. We do care, we do speak out.
It does matter to game companies - the overwhelming majority go to great lengths to avoid calling their game an MMO. They know the score, they know the genres and they tend to get it right.
It really is only the media that gets it consistently wrong and even then, the specialist media (like this site) acknowledges that they get it deliberately wrong in order to generate traffic.
BTW, don't tell me they will change it. Because I have been hearing that for years.
The genre was declining, traffic was declining, therefore money for this site was declining.
The choice is therefore "admit the genre is in decline and cover other genres too" or "mislabel other genres in order to justify covering them". Bill chose the latter.
On the first page of this thread, I linked to the article where the MMORPG.com staff debated the term "MMO". Have a read through it. They basically admit that they don't care what the term actually means, some of them admit that they don't know what it means, and most of them seem to settle on "i don't care, as long as it is a good game and it's online".
It does not matter to neither this site, nor the company who made WoT.
You are basically explaining why it does not matter enough to him. Thank you!
It's like the advertisement this site have on tera self proclaimed to have 27 million players or maplestory having 100 millions. When their active players probably no where close.
The answer is probably as silly as someone submit a request to post the game WoT. This site didn't labeled it mmo. The person submiting the request did.
The idea of massively multiplayer does NOT matter to this site, nor the company who make WoT, in their classification of WoT. Better? Any disagreement?
Why would they? It is not like "massively multiplayer" is a hot concept that gamers care a lot about anymore.
Which is precisely the reason other thread even started. Another game Kirita online self proclaim to be mmorpg when there isn't anything massive about it.
It's not even about the terminology mmo. Because if you read their advertisement in other language, they'll still call their game large scale multiplayer online game, when there is nothing large scale about them.
That's not a reason to change the definition of the genre, especially as "MMO" isn't actually a genre per se, it just describes the number of concurrent gamers within a virtual space. There is such a wide variety of gameplay on offer from MMOs, the only common trait is the number of players.
Also, it's not a crusade. The only people that consistently get it wrong are media outlets (who admit to getting it wrong), people outside the genre who read those media outlets (who don't care) and trolls like you (who don't care, you just enjoy the banter).
I also admit that we are unlikely to change anything. Within a small community like this one, we might be able to convince Bill to update the genre labels of the games list, but in the wider world the media doesn't give a shit what we think.
The only thing that will actually make a difference is a resurgence in actual MMOs. All it would take is 1 or 2 new, big MMOs to be released that capture the publics interest. A few trailers of 500v500 battles, or a time lapse of 200 people building a city. Hell, lets have a new Call of Duty that supports 300 v 300 v 300 battles that last 1 hour each. That would be an MMO, albeit of a variety never seen before.
Once we have some games that actually reinforce the purpose of an MMO and spell it out, everyone else will "get it" and this debate will disappear.