Not really, all it takes is some authority with the power to enforce it's definition of a term (it's Massively btw).
Many years ago this site had very specific criteria of what qualified for it's own listing and forum here.
500 players in a persistent virtual world was one, but there were some others like proving the development was past the concept / trailer stage by providing several screen shots from within the game itself.
"Massively" is comparative, but the comparison that should be made is to the rest of the industry, not to what the player is used to.
If you want to say your game is massively multiplayer, what you are saying is that the multiplayer component of your game is massively bigger than other multiplayer online games.
As to definitions, I remember an article by Bill on this website (i think 2016ish) where the whole team discussed the definition of "MMO". Everyone weighed in and said "it's about how many players you can fit in the same place". They interviewed Richard Garriot who said "when I invented the term, it meant 250+ players in the same zone". Raph Koster joined in and said "its all about the number of players in the same virtual environment, and that number needs to be big".
Essentially, they all agreed.......
But then in the last paragraph, Bill just outright said he was going to ignore everything they'd just said because he didn't personally care about the scale of multiplayer, only about being able to play an RPG with his mates.
And that seems to be the official stance of this website ever since. As that stance seems to match a lot of the community (because there are a lot of players who just wanna play with their mates, and not a lot of players who actually care about the scale of the multiplayer), it seems to have stuck.
Garriot .. Never said anything about 250 people ..
He was asked about UO and technology and why he call it an MMORPG
And he said his servers can hold thousands of players and all can effect each other in a persistent world even while offline ..
UO servers can hold 2500 people and thats the number he was referring to .. Not 250
ANd there were no zones in UO ... why would he say that
I always heard, many times, that their Shards could hold 3,000 concurrent players at a time, and 10,000 total. They did have "soft zones." There were 6 or 8, I forget which, on the world map. You wouldn't notice them unless you, or they, were running laggy. That's where Duping happened. Players figured out that you could drop gold, cross the line, reach back and pick up the gold, cross back over, and the original gold pile would pop back and you could pick it up. (I think that's how it worked, I never did it.)
Edit to add: The game had to be under stress from being full for that to work, if I remember right.
Server lines were/are not zones .. in any way .. And yes there were exploits connected to them early on ..
But yea the worse your connection the more you would notice them , today they are nearly non existant or noticeable ..
And yes you can shoot cast on hit an NPC or player from one side to the other .. Not not a zone in anyway similar to other games use of Zones .. as seperate parts of the game world ..
Not really, all it takes is some authority with the power to enforce it's definition of a term (it's Massively btw).
Many years ago this site had very specific criteria of what qualified for it's own listing and forum here.
500 players in a persistent virtual world was one, but there were some others like proving the development was past the concept / trailer stage by providing several screen shots from within the game itself.
"Massively" is comparative, but the comparison that should be made is to the rest of the industry, not to what the player is used to.
If you want to say your game is massively multiplayer, what you are saying is that the multiplayer component of your game is massively bigger than other multiplayer online games.
As to definitions, I remember an article by Bill on this website (i think 2016ish) where the whole team discussed the definition of "MMO". Everyone weighed in and said "it's about how many players you can fit in the same place". They interviewed Richard Garriot who said "when I invented the term, it meant 250+ players in the same zone". Raph Koster joined in and said "its all about the number of players in the same virtual environment, and that number needs to be big".
Essentially, they all agreed.......
But then in the last paragraph, Bill just outright said he was going to ignore everything they'd just said because he didn't personally care about the scale of multiplayer, only about being able to play an RPG with his mates.
And that seems to be the official stance of this website ever since. As that stance seems to match a lot of the community (because there are a lot of players who just wanna play with their mates, and not a lot of players who actually care about the scale of the multiplayer), it seems to have stuck.
Garriot .. Never said anything about 250 people ..
He was asked about UO and technology and why he call it an MMORPG
And he said his servers can hold thousands of players and all can effect each other in a persistent world even while offline ..
UO servers can hold 2500 people and thats the number he was referring to .. Not 250
ANd there were no zones in UO ... why would he say that
I always heard, many times, that their Shards could hold 3,000 concurrent players at a time, and 10,000 total. They did have "soft zones." There were 6 or 8, I forget which, on the world map. You wouldn't notice them unless you, or they, were running laggy. That's where Duping happened. Players figured out that you could drop gold, cross the line, reach back and pick up the gold, cross back over, and the original gold pile would pop back and you could pick it up. (I think that's how it worked, I never did it.)
Edit to add: The game had to be under stress from being full for that to work, if I remember right.
Server lines were/are not zones .. in any way .. And yes there were exploits connected to them early on ..
But yea the worse your connection the more you would notice them , today they are nearly non existant or noticeable ..
And yes you can shoot cast on hit an NPC or player from one side to the other .. Not not a zone in anyway similar to other games use of Zones .. as seperate parts of the game world ..
Well, whatever they are called. What's the Zone called between the server lines? DAoC had "bubbles", I take that to mean they had a third layer in between. WoW did something similar, I think. Basically the same thing, done better for the 3D games.
Not really, all it takes is some authority with the power to enforce it's definition of a term (it's Massively btw).
Many years ago this site had very specific criteria of what qualified for it's own listing and forum here.
500 players in a persistent virtual world was one, but there were some others like proving the development was past the concept / trailer stage by providing several screen shots from within the game itself.
"Massively" is comparative, but the comparison that should be made is to the rest of the industry, not to what the player is used to.
If you want to say your game is massively multiplayer, what you are saying is that the multiplayer component of your game is massively bigger than other multiplayer online games.
As to definitions, I remember an article by Bill on this website (i think 2016ish) where the whole team discussed the definition of "MMO". Everyone weighed in and said "it's about how many players you can fit in the same place". They interviewed Richard Garriot who said "when I invented the term, it meant 250+ players in the same zone". Raph Koster joined in and said "its all about the number of players in the same virtual environment, and that number needs to be big".
Essentially, they all agreed.......
But then in the last paragraph, Bill just outright said he was going to ignore everything they'd just said because he didn't personally care about the scale of multiplayer, only about being able to play an RPG with his mates.
And that seems to be the official stance of this website ever since. As that stance seems to match a lot of the community (because there are a lot of players who just wanna play with their mates, and not a lot of players who actually care about the scale of the multiplayer), it seems to have stuck.
Garriot .. Never said anything about 250 people ..
He was asked about UO and technology and why he call it an MMORPG
And he said his servers can hold thousands of players and all can effect each other in a persistent world even while offline ..
UO servers can hold 2500 people and thats the number he was referring to .. Not 250
ANd there were no zones in UO ... why would he say that
I never played UO myself
I am specifically referring to an article on this site a number of years ago about the definition of "MMOG" in which Garriott definitely used the number 250.
The article is probably still here somewhere
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Not really, all it takes is some authority with the power to enforce it's definition of a term (it's Massively btw).
Many years ago this site had very specific criteria of what qualified for it's own listing and forum here.
500 players in a persistent virtual world was one, but there were some others like proving the development was past the concept / trailer stage by providing several screen shots from within the game itself.
"Massively" is comparative, but the comparison that should be made is to the rest of the industry, not to what the player is used to.
If you want to say your game is massively multiplayer, what you are saying is that the multiplayer component of your game is massively bigger than other multiplayer online games.
As to definitions, I remember an article by Bill on this website (i think 2016ish) where the whole team discussed the definition of "MMO". Everyone weighed in and said "it's about how many players you can fit in the same place". They interviewed Richard Garriot who said "when I invented the term, it meant 250+ players in the same zone". Raph Koster joined in and said "its all about the number of players in the same virtual environment, and that number needs to be big".
Essentially, they all agreed.......
But then in the last paragraph, Bill just outright said he was going to ignore everything they'd just said because he didn't personally care about the scale of multiplayer, only about being able to play an RPG with his mates.
And that seems to be the official stance of this website ever since. As that stance seems to match a lot of the community (because there are a lot of players who just wanna play with their mates, and not a lot of players who actually care about the scale of the multiplayer), it seems to have stuck.
Garriot .. Never said anything about 250 people ..
He was asked about UO and technology and why he call it an MMORPG
And he said his servers can hold thousands of players and all can effect each other in a persistent world even while offline ..
UO servers can hold 2500 people and thats the number he was referring to .. Not 250
ANd there were no zones in UO ... why would he say that
I never played UO myself
I am specifically referring to an article on this site a number of years ago about the definition of "MMOG" in which Garriott definitely used the number 250.
The article is probably still here somewhere
You know what "they" say, link or it never happened.
Here's a recent Tweet on RGS thoughts, no specific number but he mentions many thousands.
"We did coin the term MMORPG, but it’s hard to be the arbiter of what “counts” as an MMO or MMORPG. I think MMO would be any persistent really where a community of many thousands or more can simultaneously explore and interact with each other. "
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Here's a 2017 MMORPG.COM Water cooler conversation where RG opines on the term Massively, but no hard numbers
"We felt that the term "Massively" was the key. So when people debate the applications of the term MMO to a variety of game types, I still believe that is the real differentiator. Persistence in your characters presence and growth was also clearly a part of our intention with the full "MMORPG".
From this and other articles I could find my guess is Richard would not agree 250 players is massively, but perhaps someone else can find a better source.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Shocking there is no true Marvel IP mmo as of yet. One of the biggest IP out there.
Well I'd say the genre is just doing OK these days as there's no real incentive to make new MMOs in the following massively popular universes.
Marvel
Warhammer Fantasy or 40K
Star Wars
Lord of the Rings (still a chance it's made but we'll see)
D&D
A genre that is doing VERY well doesn't have that problem. Now it's not as bad as the MOBA market that basically only supports two games, but it's not particularly inviting to create expensive MMOs that also require a paid license.
I don't think the existing MMO's in the universes listed above are particularly special either. They are one step above maintenance mode for the most part with minimal updates each year and little to no graphical improvements.
Shocking there is no true Marvel IP mmo as of yet. One of the biggest IP out there.
Well I'd say the genre is just doing OK these days as there's no real incentive to make new MMOs in the following massively popular universes.
Marvel
Warhammer Fantasy or 40K
Star Wars
Lord of the Rings (still a chance it's made but we'll see)
D&D
A genre that is doing VERY well doesn't have that problem. Now it's not as bad as the MOBA market that basically only supports two games, but it's not particularly inviting to create expensive MMOs that also require a paid license.
I don't think the existing MMO's in the universes listed above are particularly special either. They are one step above maintenance mode for the most part with minimal updates each year and little to no graphical improvements.
Warhammer is a hard one to make an actual MMO from, given that it's really just a Faction vs Faction game setting.
Personally, one of the best adaptations of the WH universe to a game format was Eternal Crusade, while plagued with all kinds of problems and drama from start to end, since I bought the game after launch and did not get into the drama, the game itself that I played, was a very fun and enjoyable game, and really had that spot on 40K feel about it.
If they made something like Eternal Crusade with a fantasy setting, I would also give that a try as well, but, again, it would be more like a FPS faction war game, then an actual MMO.
As far as D&D goes, there are all kinds of games out with that IP, some new one was just made, with the Forgotten Realms setting.
I mean, Neverwinter, and DDO, as far as MMO's go, the main problem with trying to make another D&D MMO, is that they would have to make something that better than what is out there, and good luck with that. If you wanted some generic MMO with D&D setting, Neverwinter fills the bill for that, if you want some deep complex 3.x old school, DDO fills the bill.
Unless someone comes along and makes something truly innovative and somehow bring the IP into life in a way never before done, the two that already exist are, not gonna lie, the best examples of what could have been made.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Comments
Well, whatever they are called. What's the Zone called between the server lines?
DAoC had "bubbles", I take that to mean they had a third layer in between.
WoW did something similar, I think.
Basically the same thing, done better for the 3D games.
Once upon a time....
Here's a recent Tweet on RGS thoughts, no specific number but he mentions many thousands.
"We did coin the term MMORPG, but it’s hard to be the arbiter of what “counts” as an MMO or MMORPG. I think MMO would be any persistent really where a community of many thousands or more can simultaneously explore and interact with each other. "
https://mobile.twitter.com/RichardGarriott/status/1137351564665004032
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
"We felt that the term "Massively" was the key. So when people debate the applications of the term MMO to a variety of game types, I still believe that is the real differentiator. Persistence in your characters presence and growth was also clearly a part of our intention with the full "MMORPG".
https://www.mmorpg.com/columns/mmorpgcoms-weekly-watercooler-whats-in-an-acronym-the-mmo-definition-debate-2000106405
From this and other articles I could find my guess is Richard would not agree 250 players is massively, but perhaps someone else can find a better source.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Well I'd say the genre is just doing OK these days as there's no real incentive to make new MMOs in the following massively popular universes.
- Marvel
- Warhammer Fantasy or 40K
- Star Wars
- Lord of the Rings (still a chance it's made but we'll see)
- D&D
A genre that is doing VERY well doesn't have that problem. Now it's not as bad as the MOBA market that basically only supports two games, but it's not particularly inviting to create expensive MMOs that also require a paid license.I don't think the existing MMO's in the universes listed above are particularly special either. They are one step above maintenance mode for the most part with minimal updates each year and little to no graphical improvements.
Personally, one of the best adaptations of the WH universe to a game format was Eternal Crusade, while plagued with all kinds of problems and drama from start to end, since I bought the game after launch and did not get into the drama, the game itself that I played, was a very fun and enjoyable game, and really had that spot on 40K feel about it.
If they made something like Eternal Crusade with a fantasy setting, I would also give that a try as well, but, again, it would be more like a FPS faction war game, then an actual MMO.
As far as D&D goes, there are all kinds of games out with that IP, some new one was just made, with the Forgotten Realms setting.
I mean, Neverwinter, and DDO, as far as MMO's go, the main problem with trying to make another D&D MMO, is that they would have to make something that better than what is out there, and good luck with that. If you wanted some generic MMO with D&D setting, Neverwinter fills the bill for that, if you want some deep complex 3.x old school, DDO fills the bill.
Unless someone comes along and makes something truly innovative and somehow bring the IP into life in a way never before done, the two that already exist are, not gonna lie, the best examples of what could have been made.