Interestingly when I was working on site for a major client in its industry they would have meetings described as 'ways to guide the industry' and it was literally about how to make the industry follow.
This auto-magical nobody previously gave a fuck problem of what is or is not an MMO is purely manufactured by publishers. WHY they are doing this I can only speculate but its clear to me they are trying to guide public thought in a specific direction.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Interestingly when I was working on site for a major client in its industry they would have meetings described as 'ways to guide the industry' and it was literally about how to make the industry follow.
This auto-magical nobody previously gave a fuck problem of what is or is not an MMO is purely manufactured by publishers. WHY they are doing this I can only speculate but its clear to me they are trying to guide public thought in a specific direction.
I am partially guilty myself. Some day I talked to the wrong NPC and accepted the quest "The eternal pusuit for the perfect MMO". Haven't been able to complete it yet; and when I see a title labelled as MMO it piques my interest and I want to know more, unlike for the MULTIPLAYER label. Unlike most consumers though I don't buy right away, but probably there are many out there who would try any MMO just for the sake of it.
I will cure myself of this habit eventually, I am sure.
Seems like a weird argument and a contrived one at that, we all know what the difference is between a multiplayer game and a massively multiplayer game, if a game cannot support over 64 players concurrently, then it clearly falls into the category of multiplayer, its only when you get over that number involved that it starts to become something of a grey area, less than that though and there are no possible arguments to be made that can change the definition to something other than just being a regular multiplayer game, something like that, is just obvious, simple even, so why even try to argue the contrary when the answer is so obvious?
Based on the trend, the Future of MMO is going to be on the console. Look at whats happening. So many MMOs getting console ports, new ones being developed for console, games having MMO features on the console. We will look back in history one day and say Destiny 1 was the catalyst for all of that. Our grandchildren won't play MMOs on PC. MMO on PC is dead far as we know it. Mobile and Console is the way forward for the Genre. I'm not mad at it as long as they are good games.
I let EQ, SWG, WoW, DAoC etc go long ago. Time to move on.
Based on the Trend MMOs are dying out entirely. New MMOs are very scarce, almost entirely dried up in the west and even the asian ports are getting canceled with greater and greater frequency. That's why sites like MMORPG want to expand the definition to cover things that simply aren't MMOs. If you look at the MMOs list here, Diablo 3 is listed.
But slapping a label on things that aren't MMOs and saying "This is an MMO now" will satisfy true MMO fans about as much as if you took hardcore trance fans, showed them a rap song with a few synth beats, and said "This is trance now."
You don't expand a label just because things are dying. If they are meant to die, you let them die. I have the feeling that if MMOs (true MMOs) ever die out though. They're going to pull an Obi-Wan and come back soon as something entirely different:
Based on the trend, the Future of MMO is going to be on the console. Look at whats happening. So many MMOs getting console ports, new ones being developed for console, games having MMO features on the console. We will look back in history one day and say Destiny 1 was the catalyst for all of that. Our grandchildren won't play MMOs on PC. MMO on PC is dead far as we know it. Mobile and Console is the way forward for the Genre. I'm not mad at it as long as they are good games.
I let EQ, SWG, WoW, DAoC etc go long ago. Time to move on.
Based on the Trend MMOs are dying out entirely. New MMOs are very scarce, almost entirely dried up in the west and even the asian ports are getting canceled with greater and greater frequency. That's why sites like MMORPG want to expand the definition to cover things that simply aren't MMOs. If you look at the MMOs list here, Diablo 3 is listed.
But slapping a label on things that aren't MMOs and saying "This is an MMO now" will satisfy true MMO fans about as much as if you took hardcore trance fans, showed them a rap song with a few synth beats, and said "This is trance now."
You don't expand a label just because things are dying. If they are meant to die, you let them die. I have the feeling that if MMOs (true MMOs) ever die out though. They're going to pull an Obi-Wan and come back soon as something entirely different:
Been making this point too, just add a list of co-op games to the sites game list under the title Co-op Games or give them a co-op tag and keep the site healthy and accurate.
They review solo RPG's, hardware, this is not just a site for MMO's.
Based on the trend, the Future of MMO is going to be on the console. Look at whats happening. So many MMOs getting console ports, new ones being developed for console, games having MMO features on the console. We will look back in history one day and say Destiny 1 was the catalyst for all of that. Our grandchildren won't play MMOs on PC. MMO on PC is dead far as we know it. Mobile and Console is the way forward for the Genre. I'm not mad at it as long as they are good games.
I let EQ, SWG, WoW, DAoC etc go long ago. Time to move on.
Based on the Trend MMOs are dying out entirely. New MMOs are very scarce, almost entirely dried up in the west and even the asian ports are getting canceled with greater and greater frequency. That's why sites like MMORPG want to expand the definition to cover things that simply aren't MMOs. If you look at the MMOs list here, Diablo 3 is listed.
But slapping a label on things that aren't MMOs and saying "This is an MMO now" will satisfy true MMO fans about as much as if you took hardcore trance fans, showed them a rap song with a few synth beats, and said "This is trance now."
You don't expand a label just because things are dying. If they are meant to die, you let them die. I have the feeling that if MMOs (true MMOs) ever die out though. They're going to pull an Obi-Wan and come back soon as something entirely different:
I agree even though I never though of it myself. The death of the genre would bring a new beginning, if players were starved from MMOs; right now we have other sorry excuses for MMOs to help with our craving, so we don't starve.
One thing though, two MEMEs in the same post is so against internet etiquette that you should be fined by the internet meme police.
In 2006 Pluto was demoted from status of Planet to Dwarf Planet; the solar system has had 8 planets ever since and our lives have not been the same. The argument they made was that if what constitutes a planet is its size, and if Pluto was in fact an MMO a planet then hundreds of other celestial bodies in our system had to be labelled as MMOs *PLANETS*. Since as a species we are at what is hopefully just the beginning of our exploration of the cosmos, it stands to reason that in the future we will be able to observe other planets in other solar systems, and to avoid confusion we need a solid set of rules to operate with.
In the gaming industry there is no authority deciding what label each game can wear — unlike for the example above where the decision was taken by the scientific community — and it is ultimately just about how the developer wants to reach the players. If they think that calling their single player game with a 16 players multi-player mode Massive and that this will bring more sales, as long as they don't do it fraudulently they should be free to do so.
Of course since everyone has his own definition of what massive means in the acronym MMO, the player expecting hundreds other individuals on screen might be disappointed to find out that there are just 15 others to play with, but let's be frank, anyone who buys a game today has all the resources needed to take an informed decision about the piece of software they are about to spend money on: steam reviews, this site, other sites' review. Nobody is getting cheated and the whole debate about what is MMO and what isn't, seems to me to be more about pride: "How dare that puny little lobby game label itself massive, the game I play is massive."
In the end Pluto doesn't care what we call him, he has been the same Pluto we knew even after the demotion. In fact, I don't think he even knows it...
It would matter if people were buying real estate on Pluto.
"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
The only way to define the massively multiplayer it if you first define what the multiplayer limit is.
At UO's time if was what 64? What is it now? Is there even a limit to differentiate then anymore.
That's a good point. Was UO really capped out at 64 players? I'd have thought it had at least the max of 255 that DOS capped out at.
But an accepted definition would be nice. Heck, if I play Skyrim (through Steam), thousands of players are also playing Skyrim (through Steam). We are all online, so to speak, so does that qualify? We're all playing the same game, online.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Yeah the first meme didn't show up in the post preview or pull up when I first posted it for some reason. Figured it just didn't work. So I added a picture. Then I come back later to see them both. XD
Comments
This auto-magical nobody previously gave a fuck problem of what is or is not an MMO is purely manufactured by publishers.
WHY they are doing this I can only speculate but its clear to me they are trying to guide public thought in a specific direction.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I will cure myself of this habit eventually, I am sure.
But slapping a label on things that aren't MMOs and saying "This is an MMO now" will satisfy true MMO fans about as much as if you took hardcore trance fans, showed them a rap song with a few synth beats, and said "This is trance now."
You don't expand a label just because things are dying. If they are meant to die, you let them die. I have the feeling that if MMOs (true MMOs) ever die out though. They're going to pull an Obi-Wan and come back soon as something entirely different:
Been making this point too, just add a list of co-op games to the sites game list under the title Co-op Games or give them a co-op tag and keep the site healthy and accurate.
They review solo RPG's, hardware, this is not just a site for MMO's.
One thing though, two MEMEs in the same post is so against internet etiquette that you should be fined by the internet meme police.
"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
But an accepted definition would be nice. Heck, if I play Skyrim (through Steam), thousands of players are also playing Skyrim (through Steam). We are all online, so to speak, so does that qualify? We're all playing the same game, online.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR