This is an MMO. Roughly 200 players all in the same non-instanced area fighting the same world boss.
So we're trotting out the measuring sticks, now?
No, just offering an example to provide some clarity to the confused people.
Hard to believe people really would be that confused about it. Maybe I'm just "old" (36).
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
An MMO is a game that allows a massive amount of players to play the game within the same virtual world as one another.
You can arrive at this definition by using english comprehension on the words "massively multiplayer online". Or you arrive at this definition by reading Richard Garriott's and Raph Kosters thoughts on the subject (two of the pioneers of the genre). Or you can arrive at this definition by examining the earlier examples of MMOs.
Whatever way you get there, that is the definition. The problem is, there is no hard number, hence the arguments. What does "massively" mean? It is an observation of size, meaning bigger than. So, lets look at multiplayer online games. How many people do they normally support? Usually anywhere between 2 and 128 people. What number is massively bigger than 128?
Because massively multiplayer both has no set number and is relative to the current crop of standard multiplayer games, it is a moving target. When Garriott and Koster were first defining the genre, their number was 250. So, by their definition nearly 20 years ago, if your game could support 250 people within the same virtual environment, it was an MMO.
I'm not sure if 250 is "massively" bigger than 128, it's less than double, but 250 is certainly massively bigger than standard multiplayer online games from 20 years ago. I would personally say the number should be 1000, but hell, even 250 would be good these days.
So, if we use 250 players within the same virtual world (i.e. multiplayer), does Destiny meet the criteria? Lol, nope. The heavy use of instancing and the lobby means it is impossible to ever share the same virtual world with more than a handful of players (cap of 16 in Destiny 1?). If I want to play with a friend, we cannot just arrange a location and meet up there, because we are most likely in different virtual worlds (instances). We will have to group up via the lobby, then the game would create a new virtual world for us to inhabit.
The same applies to mobas. How many people can you have in the same virtual world? 6? 10?
Please note that the definition is down to number of players within a virtual world. It does not mean you have to be able to group with with all of them at the same time. It does not mean that they all need to be on screen at the same time. Just that they exist within the same virtual environment.
So, LotRO for example. It is an MMO. Whilst the engine sucks with large amounts of players (50+) in the same area, if there are 1000 people connected to the server, any one of them can contact anyone else and say "lets meet here" and they will both be able to walk there, without having to change virtual worlds, and be able to see each other. The 1000 people all exist within the same virtual environment, even if they can't all fit on the screen at the same time without the game/server breaking.
Beyond the actual number (250-1000), the biggest grey area comes with instancing and persistence. Games like SW:TOR and ESO heavily use instancing, the first due to a shit engine, the second due to wanting a megaserver. Are these MMOs? SW:TOR only seems capable of handling about 50 people per instance and often times you can say "meet here" and it'll work because there is only one instance currently running. ESO, whilst it has bigger instances, has many more of them so it is harder.
I personally would say they're MMOs, simply because you can encounter 250+ real people in the game world without having to go to a lobby or manually change the virtual world you're in. However, were I a game dev I would avoid using instancing because it takes us away from the whole purpose of the genre - massively multiplayer.
Now, why is there such disagreement on the definition of MMO?
1) Ignorance / stupidity - a lot of people are ignorant of the history of MMOs and thus cannot pick out the unique feature. A lot of people lack good quality english comprehension, so can't understand the words "massively multiplayer online".
2) Click-bait - the genre is doing badly. By all metrics available to us, the genre is in bad state. Players are leaving in droves for other genres and developers have massively scaled back dev work on new MMOs. Sites like this one and massivelyop have admittedly misusing the term MMO in order to generate traffic. If you actually look around, you will notice that the vast majority of misuse of the term comes from the media, not the players or developers.
3) Matching Features - MMO means one thing: number of players within a virtual environment. But MMORPG means a whole lot of other things. Look at the feature list of WoW, SW:TOR, FFXIV etc. Then look at the feature list of Destiny or The Division. Pretty damn similar right? So, why not lump them in the same genre? I mean if people like WoW, surely they'll like a game that has 90% of the same features? A lot of people do this, and the comparison is valid, however without the massive number of players, you're describing an MORPG, not an MMORPG. Its a subtle difference, but one often overlooked.
4) Trolling - some people just like to troll and this is an easy subject. @nariusseldon freely admits this is why he does it. You will never, ever see him actually post his own opinion on what defines an MMO, instead he will just link to other sites (even ones proven to have no credibility) in order to keep the argument going.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
4) Trolling - some people just like to troll and this is an easy subject. @nariusseldon freely admits this is why he does it. You will never, ever see him actually post his own opinion on what defines an MMO, instead he will just link to other sites (even ones proven to have no credibility) in order to keep the argument going.
Hey .. that is not the ONLY thing i do. I also cite you and point out your logical mistakes (like this one).
BTW, did you just admit that what defines an MMO is based on opinions? (and i quote "You will never, ever see him actually post his own opinion on what defines an MMO").
So what is your opinion on what defines a MMO? You will answer, right, since you are not like me. And also tell me, why is your opinion superior that those that classify games in the gamelist on this site? Inquiring minds want to know.
Its not easy to set up parties of 16 - 32 players that are well geared in an MMO. However, its super easy to just join a shooter game that has teams of 16 - 32 players killing each other in a large map.
That being said. I believe that it requires a MASSIVE effort and attempt to make and maintain a persistent online world, but what the player encounters 99% of the time is anything but massive.
MMO = A game where you see a ton of players in the same city hubs, mostly AFK, lagging the hell out of you. Even with all those players, you'll most often play MMO's under solo-play for most of their progression.
I hope none of you guys are biologists or medic. I don't want someone cutting people thinking "well, anything is anything, fuck all the terminology I had to learn".
wow .. you equate biologist and medic with some dudes talking about video games on the internet? LoL.
Given that logic, why do you come to a website that has a game list that, by the opinions of many here, commit the "anything is anything" sin (unless you agree with their classification of Destiny 2 as a MMOFPS)?
So i guess you want your medic to use accurate terminology but not your websites?
MASSIVE Multiplayer Online game. 100 players is not massive; I don't give a rat's ass what you include in the game.
I used to play a MUD that had 150 players and huge dynamics, but would never pretend that 150 ever compared to the thousands on a UO server.
I've seen Space Station 13 servers with 140 or so players and, again, none of them have ever confused that game as being a massive multiplayer online game.
MMO has now become a marketing term, losing almost all the meaning of its acronym's individual letters.
A game that almost forces you to know people, prior to playing the game, in order to play it online, removes the main element of playing a true M MO. Go ahead and try joining one of these Ark, or Minecraft servers without knowing the rest of the players in that game... it's not fun, or friendly and they have no contractual obligation to let you play there simply because you own the game, unlike an official server on an actual MMO does.
Honestly there is too many of these threads lately, heres the real answer. There use to be a clear cut answer for this. EQ, EQ2, WoW, DAoC, AO, UO, Aion, Rift, AA. All MMOs, see a trend here? Notice how many are active at a time within a server.
Marketing teams described battles in games like CoS or BF as massive in scale which in turn went to massive in size which now has blurred the lines to everything is a MMO because marketing says so.
We all know what a true MMO is and we don't have to keep telling ourselves this over and over.
Hi, been playing a lot of Destiny 2 (fun times but grindy).. but did some research..
So it sounds like a lot of people are saying games that are instance heavy cannot possibly be in any shape or form an MMO because you cant play with 150-200 people at the same time like in say EQ or WoW. The thinking that a MMO is specific to a certain number is kinda like... ehh. IDK. To me its the Experience of playing in a game world with Multiple people. Not just 1 or 2 but Multiple like 20-30 People at least. Then its starting to touch MMO territory.
Let me debunk the "MMO=Huge Number of people" myth first though..
Guild Wars 1 is listed as MMORPG but it had a instanced based lobby style of play similar to Destiny? But According to many definitions here its not massive. I bet many are gonna say now that Gw1 is no longer a MMO so they can fit a narrative. The term is broader than you think, and today more descriptive than anything else. Explain to me how Guild Wars1 isnt a MMO. Please. It does not allow 150-200 people per instance.. so please explain that. I will wait.
To all the people arguing that "_______ even said its not a MMO":
Uber is a taxi service, they prefer to be called a "Shared Ride System" but if you look at everything Uber is doing, its a got damn Taxi service. Same thing with MMO.
No developer wants to call their MMO "Style" game a MMO because the MMO market is all but dead. Hard truth. With the exception of a handful of games its just not smart to brand your new game as that. Even if it is exactly that. It comes with a different set of expectations.
Destiny, The Division, Warframe, ESO, TSW, Star Citizen, Guild Wars hell even GTA:O, are all heavy instanced games but with all the MMO features, some have more some have less but the bottom line is you are sharing a game space/world with multiple people at once, some as low as 15, some as high as 100 people per instance. Again this isnt a bad thing!
Its like you guys think those games are Borderlands or Gears. There is a difference between a co-op game and a Multiplayer Online Game. You don't have to be a UO or Meridian59 player to realize this. As I said last week..the old definition of MMO does not work for today. Those types of games are not being made anymore and when they do they aren't supported enough. Its funny to me how many of you "Old School" players scream for "vanilla" games but when you get one, not many of you support it.. or maybe you do but there just isn't enough of you? If its the latter then you know its never going to happen because devs/publishers wont waste money on what the minority want, they will always go Majority..
What I'm getting at is those days of EQ, DAOC, UO are gone but That's a good thing, the MMORPG market needs to change and as I said before the only way to get it is to shake things up..and move forward not backwards. If you want the old school back that's what the emulators are for I guess?
BTW before you start, I'm in my 30s and have played nearly every MMO there is since 2000. I love and fully understand what a MMORPG is about, but I also at the same time fully support all the new ways the MMO genre is trying to evolve. Its actually really cool to see a game like Destiny borrow things from classic games like Everquest or WoW.
No they aren't the same, but they do have much in common. A lot. I could list out all the things they have in common and with the exception of "The Amount of People" at once thing, you would say on paper this sounds the exact same. So all you folks crying about it, dry your tears and cheer up, the future is a lot brighter than you think. Its not the end of MMOS, its a fresh start.
So to answer my OP: MMO is a very broad description of a game that has a large world space that you can play in with multiple people.. All the normal MMO tropes must be there and you must be able to play with and randomly meet other players.. no matter if its 20 at a time or 300 at a time..you can still potentially play with thousands of people in the world space.
Destiny is actually a MMO because the MMO today is not the same MMO from the year 2000.
Things need to change in order to grow.
PS Edit: I was walking around in D2 on IO doing Patrols when i spotted a group of at least 10 people trying to take down what looked like a world boss. I ran over to help out and I got a alert that said I joined a Heroic fight. I helped the Guardians take it down and they all thanked me for helping since they were all lower levels. After it was over we got our loots and went our separate ways. Is that not an MMO experience?
Post edited by klash2def on
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
Destiny is actually a MMO because the MMO today is not the same MMO from the year 2000.
are you sure? Some people here seems to under the impression that they have final authority on what a MMO is .. ignoring you, the gamelist on this site, the classification of massivelyop, and reviewers on metacritics.
I personally, i think they are kind of sad in a bubble believing that they are righteous, but hey, be careful. They love to attack you because you have the guts to go up against their gospel.
Destiny is actually a MMO because the MMO today is not the same MMO from the year 2000.
are you sure? Some people here seems to under the impression that they have final authority on what a MMO is .. ignoring you, the gamelist on this site, the classification of massivelyop, and reviewers on metacritics.
I personally, i think they are kind of sad in a bubble believing that they are righteous, but hey, be careful. They love to attack you because you have the guts to go up against their gospel.
C'mon, you're not a victim. For years you have gone out of your way to troll and irritate MMO fans with this narrative. It just so happens that "not quite" MMOs have gained popularity and these MMO news sites want to cover it for readership (which makes sense). Same goes for metacritic and reviewers...
The only "gospel" here is the English language, and this subject is simple:
Playing with others in the same space = Multiplayer Playing online = Online
The term "Massive" is about the only halfway subjective part of this and you can look up the definition, making whatever intelligent decision you want as to how many players that would be. I honestly find it funny how complex of an issue this is always made. Most things can indeed be complex... yet this one is like saying blue is red
Though MMORPG still retains the classical meaning, MMO has expanded in meaning beyond that, in fact and in practice, as is amply demonstrated in this forum and others, and beyond, due to the ever changing and expanding nature and variety of the games themselves.
Such is a common occurrence in living languages and a steadfast denial of it, no matter how loud and long, will not negate or prevent evolution in meaning over time.
Funny, people go to court all the time to dispute the meaning of this or that. It takes a judge to decide how he/she understands the meaning of a thing based on past interpretations and history. The final decision is still not universal and can vary from country to country or even from company to company. So the answer usually depends on where you are and who you're talking to. The only absolute is that there are no absolutes, everything is in a state of change, including what defines an MMO.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Destiny is actually a MMO because the MMO today is not the same MMO from the year 2000.
are you sure? Some people here seems to under the impression that they have final authority on what a MMO is .. ignoring you, the gamelist on this site, the classification of massivelyop, and reviewers on metacritics.
I personally, i think they are kind of sad in a bubble believing that they are righteous, but hey, be careful. They love to attack you because you have the guts to go up against their gospel.
C'mon, you're not a victim. For years you have gone out of your way to troll and irritate MMO fans with this narrative. It just so happens that "not quite" MMOs have gained popularity and these MMO news sites want to cover it for readership (which makes sense). Same goes for metacritic and reviewers...
Still .. nothing i said is wrong. Didn't a lot of people here ignore all those lists and reviewers? Didn't those people attack anyone who does not think they have the final say of what a MMO is?
Now you can explain why a lot of sites & reviewers & players want to broaden what MMO means. But that does not change the fact that they do, and some people here are not happy.
Now if you are irritated by the truth, well, it is really too bad. I suppose you have the option to stick your head in the sand and ignore everyone who classifies the "not quite" MMOs as MMOs. In fact, are many people here already doing that?
MMO definition are the same it always has been, why the fu change it, really??
Of course. You don't get the memo? This forum is a great place to beat the dead horse.
And what definition are you using? Certainly not the one used on this site, or on massivelyop.com, unless you believe games like World of Tank has always been defined as a MMO.
Comments
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
You can arrive at this definition by using english comprehension on the words "massively multiplayer online". Or you arrive at this definition by reading Richard Garriott's and Raph Kosters thoughts on the subject (two of the pioneers of the genre). Or you can arrive at this definition by examining the earlier examples of MMOs.
Whatever way you get there, that is the definition. The problem is, there is no hard number, hence the arguments. What does "massively" mean? It is an observation of size, meaning bigger than. So, lets look at multiplayer online games. How many people do they normally support? Usually anywhere between 2 and 128 people. What number is massively bigger than 128?
Because massively multiplayer both has no set number and is relative to the current crop of standard multiplayer games, it is a moving target. When Garriott and Koster were first defining the genre, their number was 250. So, by their definition nearly 20 years ago, if your game could support 250 people within the same virtual environment, it was an MMO.
I'm not sure if 250 is "massively" bigger than 128, it's less than double, but 250 is certainly massively bigger than standard multiplayer online games from 20 years ago. I would personally say the number should be 1000, but hell, even 250 would be good these days.
So, if we use 250 players within the same virtual world (i.e. multiplayer), does Destiny meet the criteria? Lol, nope. The heavy use of instancing and the lobby means it is impossible to ever share the same virtual world with more than a handful of players (cap of 16 in Destiny 1?). If I want to play with a friend, we cannot just arrange a location and meet up there, because we are most likely in different virtual worlds (instances). We will have to group up via the lobby, then the game would create a new virtual world for us to inhabit.
The same applies to mobas. How many people can you have in the same virtual world? 6? 10?
Please note that the definition is down to number of players within a virtual world. It does not mean you have to be able to group with with all of them at the same time. It does not mean that they all need to be on screen at the same time. Just that they exist within the same virtual environment.
So, LotRO for example. It is an MMO. Whilst the engine sucks with large amounts of players (50+) in the same area, if there are 1000 people connected to the server, any one of them can contact anyone else and say "lets meet here" and they will both be able to walk there, without having to change virtual worlds, and be able to see each other. The 1000 people all exist within the same virtual environment, even if they can't all fit on the screen at the same time without the game/server breaking.
Beyond the actual number (250-1000), the biggest grey area comes with instancing and persistence. Games like SW:TOR and ESO heavily use instancing, the first due to a shit engine, the second due to wanting a megaserver. Are these MMOs? SW:TOR only seems capable of handling about 50 people per instance and often times you can say "meet here" and it'll work because there is only one instance currently running. ESO, whilst it has bigger instances, has many more of them so it is harder.
I personally would say they're MMOs, simply because you can encounter 250+ real people in the game world without having to go to a lobby or manually change the virtual world you're in. However, were I a game dev I would avoid using instancing because it takes us away from the whole purpose of the genre - massively multiplayer.
Now, why is there such disagreement on the definition of MMO?
1) Ignorance / stupidity - a lot of people are ignorant of the history of MMOs and thus cannot pick out the unique feature. A lot of people lack good quality english comprehension, so can't understand the words "massively multiplayer online".
2) Click-bait - the genre is doing badly. By all metrics available to us, the genre is in bad state. Players are leaving in droves for other genres and developers have massively scaled back dev work on new MMOs. Sites like this one and massivelyop have admittedly misusing the term MMO in order to generate traffic. If you actually look around, you will notice that the vast majority of misuse of the term comes from the media, not the players or developers.
3) Matching Features - MMO means one thing: number of players within a virtual environment. But MMORPG means a whole lot of other things. Look at the feature list of WoW, SW:TOR, FFXIV etc. Then look at the feature list of Destiny or The Division. Pretty damn similar right? So, why not lump them in the same genre? I mean if people like WoW, surely they'll like a game that has 90% of the same features? A lot of people do this, and the comparison is valid, however without the massive number of players, you're describing an MORPG, not an MMORPG. Its a subtle difference, but one often overlooked.
4) Trolling - some people just like to troll and this is an easy subject. @nariusseldon freely admits this is why he does it. You will never, ever see him actually post his own opinion on what defines an MMO, instead he will just link to other sites (even ones proven to have no credibility) in order to keep the argument going.
BTW, did you just admit that what defines an MMO is based on opinions? (and i quote "You will never, ever see him actually post his own opinion on what defines an MMO").
So what is your opinion on what defines a MMO? You will answer, right, since you are not like me. And also tell me, why is your opinion superior that those that classify games in the gamelist on this site? Inquiring minds want to know.
However, its super easy to just join a shooter game that has teams of 16 - 32 players killing each other in a large map.
That being said.
I believe that it requires a MASSIVE effort and attempt to make and maintain a persistent online world, but what the player encounters 99% of the time is anything but massive.
MMO is an acronym
DAMN IT!
Details...details... ;-)
~~ postlarval ~~
RIP.
~~ postlarval ~~
Given that logic, why do you come to a website that has a game list that, by the opinions of many here, commit the "anything is anything" sin (unless you agree with their classification of Destiny 2 as a MMOFPS)?
So i guess you want your medic to use accurate terminology but not your websites?
Do you include the persons who classify games on the gamelist on this site? They classify destiny 2 as a "MMOFPS", you know.
I used to play a MUD that had 150 players and huge dynamics, but would never pretend that 150 ever compared to the thousands on a UO server.
I've seen Space Station 13 servers with 140 or so players and, again, none of them have ever confused that game as being a massive multiplayer online game.
MMO has now become a marketing term, losing almost all the meaning of its acronym's individual letters.
A game that almost forces you to know people, prior to playing the game, in order to play it online, removes the main element of playing a true M MO. Go ahead and try joining one of these Ark, or Minecraft servers without knowing the rest of the players in that game... it's not fun, or friendly and they have no contractual obligation to let you play there simply because you own the game, unlike an official server on an actual MMO does.
Marketing teams described battles in games like CoS or BF as massive in scale which in turn went to massive in size which now has blurred the lines to everything is a MMO because marketing says so.
We all know what a true MMO is and we don't have to keep telling ourselves this over and over.
So it sounds like a lot of people are saying games that are instance heavy cannot possibly be in any shape or form an MMO because you cant play with 150-200 people at the same time like in say EQ or WoW. The thinking that a MMO is specific to a certain number is kinda like... ehh. IDK. To me its the Experience of playing in a game world with Multiple people. Not just 1 or 2 but Multiple like 20-30 People at least. Then its starting to touch MMO territory.
Let me debunk the "MMO=Huge Number of people" myth first though..
Guild Wars 1 is listed as MMORPG but it had a instanced based lobby style of play similar to Destiny? But According to many definitions here its not massive. I bet many are gonna say now that Gw1 is no longer a MMO so they can fit a narrative. The term is broader than you think, and today more descriptive than anything else. Explain to me how Guild Wars1 isnt a MMO. Please. It does not allow 150-200 people per instance.. so please explain that. I will wait.
To all the people arguing that "_______ even said its not a MMO":
Uber is a taxi service, they prefer to be called a "Shared Ride System" but if you look at everything Uber is doing, its a got damn Taxi service. Same thing with MMO.
No developer wants to call their MMO "Style" game a MMO because the MMO market is all but dead. Hard truth. With the exception of a handful of games its just not smart to brand your new game as that. Even if it is exactly that. It comes with a different set of expectations.
Destiny, The Division, Warframe, ESO, TSW, Star Citizen, Guild Wars hell even GTA:O, are all heavy instanced games but with all the MMO features, some have more some have less but the bottom line is you are sharing a game space/world with multiple people at once, some as low as 15, some as high as 100 people per instance. Again this isnt a bad thing!
Its like you guys think those games are Borderlands or Gears. There is a difference between a co-op game and a Multiplayer Online Game. You don't have to be a UO or Meridian59 player to realize this. As I said last week..the old definition of MMO does not work for today. Those types of games are not being made anymore and when they do they aren't supported enough. Its funny to me how many of you "Old School" players scream for "vanilla" games but when you get one, not many of you support it.. or maybe you do but there just isn't enough of you? If its the latter then you know its never going to happen because devs/publishers wont waste money on what the minority want, they will always go Majority..
What I'm getting at is those days of EQ, DAOC, UO are gone but That's a good thing, the MMORPG market needs to change and as I said before the only way to get it is to shake things up..and move forward not backwards. If you want the old school back that's what the emulators are for I guess?
BTW before you start, I'm in my 30s and have played nearly every MMO there is since 2000. I love and fully understand what a MMORPG is about, but I also at the same time fully support all the new ways the MMO genre is trying to evolve. Its actually really cool to see a game like Destiny borrow things from classic games like Everquest or WoW.
No they aren't the same, but they do have much in common. A lot. I could list out all the things they have in common and with the exception of "The Amount of People" at once thing, you would say on paper this sounds the exact same. So all you folks crying about it, dry your tears and cheer up, the future is a lot brighter than you think. Its not the end of MMOS, its a fresh start.
So to answer my OP: MMO is a very broad description of a game that has a large world space that you can play in with multiple people.. All the normal MMO tropes must be there and you must be able to play with and randomly meet other players.. no matter if its 20 at a time or 300 at a time..you can still potentially play with thousands of people in the world space.
Destiny is actually a MMO because the MMO today is not the same MMO from the year 2000.
Things need to change in order to grow.
PS Edit: I was walking around in D2 on IO doing Patrols when i spotted a group of at least 10 people trying to take down what looked like a world boss. I ran over to help out and I got a alert that said I joined a Heroic fight. I helped the Guardians take it down and they all thanked me for helping since they were all lower levels. After it was over we got our loots and went our separate ways. Is that not an MMO experience?
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
They both classifies Destiny 2 as "MMO shooters/FPS".
I personally, i think they are kind of sad in a bubble believing that they are righteous, but hey, be careful. They love to attack you because you have the guts to go up against their gospel.
The only "gospel" here is the English language, and this subject is simple:
Playing with others in the same space = Multiplayer
Playing online = Online
The term "Massive" is about the only halfway subjective part of this and you can look up the definition, making whatever intelligent decision you want as to how many players that would be. I honestly find it funny how complex of an issue this is always made. Most things can indeed be complex... yet this one is like saying blue is red
Such is a common occurrence in living languages and a steadfast denial of it, no matter how loud and long, will not negate or prevent evolution in meaning over time.
MMO definition are the same it always has been, why the fu change it, really??
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Didn't those people attack anyone who does not think they have the final say of what a MMO is?
Now you can explain why a lot of sites & reviewers & players want to broaden what MMO means. But that does not change the fact that they do, and some people here are not happy.
Now if you are irritated by the truth, well, it is really too bad. I suppose you have the option to stick your head in the sand and ignore everyone who classifies the "not quite" MMOs as MMOs. In fact, are many people here already doing that?
And what definition are you using? Certainly not the one used on this site, or on massivelyop.com, unless you believe games like World of Tank has always been defined as a MMO.