yep it's why hellgate london is not listed, those other games have only online play and count as mmo's because they are only multiplayer and only online. Exsteel is just like fury in that aspect, so tecnically yes they are mmo's just not mmo rpgs. cause there is no rpg aspect.
1. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology.
2. The game must include some form of common area where players can interact with one another inside of the persistent game world. This excludes lobby and chat room based interaction. Exceptions are made where logical (such as sports MMOs) that still fit within the spirit of what an MMO is.
3. The game must make use of persistent characters. This means that you should be able to log in after logging out and find your character as advanced as you left them (or more).
4. The game must contain some form of advancement.
Seems they did water down number 2, generally they don't allow lobby's and chatrooms, but may make exceptions, hmm.
I found the old phrasing for point 2 : "The game must include some form of graphical common area. This distinction means Diablo II is not considered an MMORPG, while Guild Wars is. " Imho, this was a much better definition.In the past we held heated arguments about how Guild Wars was not an mmorpg, but in the end, I could live with the old definition mmorpg.com made, furthermore, it is not because Arenanet says their game is a CORPG, that it is actually true, and if the rest of the world makes a definition about what an mmog is, who are they to tell otherwise ...
Following their current definition, a game should have an area where at least 500 players can come together to socialize ( unless they make an exception, hrm ). So basically, mmorpg.com just made an exception for Rakion, altho they are supposed to only make these if they are logical, in this case it clearly isn't logical. And I bet it is not logical for many other so called mmo's like Exteel ( I don't know much about his game ).
It seems they are sliding away again, and yes, it makes perfect sence to add Diablo III if they allow Rakion. Diablo III is probably even more of an mmorpg, because there is alot more advancement in it, the only thing you could argue is that there is not enough information available to make a decision.
Either way, imho mmorpg.com made a mistake to allow "exceptions", because it is clear decisions are now made arbitrary and not following certain procedures.
If you are interested in subscription or PCU numbers for MMORPG's, check out my site : http://mmodata.blogspot.be/ Favorite MMORPG's : DAoC pre ToA-NF, SWG Pre CU-NGE, EVE Online
the number one reason: its not a mmorpg (the world is not persistant) #2 - we dont know anything about gameplay yet. c) those others should not be on the list
you stole my signature!
nice try buddy, but i had this sig the first day the cg came out.
yep it's why hellgate london is not listed, those other games have only online play and count as mmo's because they are only multiplayer and only online. Exsteel is just like fury in that aspect, so tecnically yes they are mmo's just not mmo rpgs. cause there is no rpg aspect.
Huh ... But Hellgate London IS listed on ... mmorpg.com.
Like a poster said above: you could OR narrow the definitions (but then GW is also in discussion to be included) OR you could widen the definition (but then you would have to include about all games being played as mmo's).
Personally I am against games which are completely made up of instances and almost NO free world to walk in. You do need to have a world setting somewhere and you DO need to have seperate instances (like going to a cinema or football stadium). But the "world" has to be in there.
The moment a world is cut up into instances BECAUSE of the preloading Hi Res graphics and lazyness of the programmers to not do something around "background graphics loading", that game ceases to be an mmorpg for me.
So COD"X" - even with a "leveling" or gear advance, could never be considered an mmorpg, because of the graphics loading screens and no coherent world. An example of this in an mmorpg?... City of Heroes (but many others could be cited too).
I agree with you, the problem is, as I stated above, that mmorpg.com made a good definition, and then changed it to allow "exceptions".
In that definition, Guild Wars is an mmorpg, but Diablo II and most likely Diablo III are not.
If you are interested in subscription or PCU numbers for MMORPG's, check out my site : http://mmodata.blogspot.be/ Favorite MMORPG's : DAoC pre ToA-NF, SWG Pre CU-NGE, EVE Online
I think it's based mostly (or wholly) on what the developers/publishers of the games themselves choose to identify, represent, and market themselves as. Rather than MMORPG.com looking at every game that comes out and deciding themselves which ones they consider "true MMORPGs" and which ones they don't.
Originally posted by Wighty
It's like the latest batch of MMO's are like a f'n Kevin Costner movie... <think Waterworld, the Postman, etc> they cost a FORTUNE, they sound like they may be good but then you just realized you sat around for 3 hours of WTF...
I personally wouldnt considder it as an MMO because it is not an online-only game. It is rather a single player game with multiplayer functionality. Using the criteria of lobbys as to why D3 should not be included, Guild Wars for instance should not be included aswell. But GW is an online-only game, it cannot fit into any other group but MMO(RPG)s even though officialy it isnt one.
I dont know about other listed games having offline functionality, ive never played them, If they do have offline functionality, than i would not list them as MMORPGs.
Well, mmorpg.com does have a standard for this : 1. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology.
2. The game must include some form of common area where players can interact with one another inside of the persistent game world. This excludes lobby and chat room based interaction. Exceptions are made where logical (such as sports MMOs) that still fit within the spirit of what an MMO is.
3. The game must make use of persistent characters. This means that you should be able to log in after logging out and find your character as advanced as you left them (or more).
4. The game must contain some form of advancement.
I think point number 1 is the best definition of an MMO. Does Diablo 3 even have servers that you connect to (beside Battle net)?
If not then it really cannot be considered an MMO.
I think another defintion that needs to be added is that the world needs to be persistant. I.e. when you log of the world continues (indefinetely), not sure if that is the case with Diable 3. It certainly was not with Diable 1 & 2.
Playing: Rohan Played (from best to worst): Shadowbane, Guild Wars, Shayia, Age of Conan, Warhammer, Runes of Magic, Rappelz, Archlord, Knight online, King of Kings, Kal online, Last chaos
Well, D3 won't be a mmo, at least not in the formal definition. Although the game is persistent, the zone instancing basically disqualifies it from being a mmo. That being said, I'd rather play d2 or d3 than any mmo on the market right now, despite the fact that those games don't include some mmo components that are very important to me. Also, D3 will likely have more people playing it than wow. I say that because back when EQ was king and 400k players was considered a lot, D2 had millions. No monthly fee, nearly unlimited replayability, and a phat loot drive like no other. What's not to like. I even expect that D3 will take away many mmo subscribers. Yet, despite taking away the same market segment, it's still not a mmo. :P
Well, mmorpg.com does have a standard for this : 1. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology.
2. The game must include some form of common area where players can interact with one another inside of the persistent game world. This excludes lobby and chat room based interaction. Exceptions are made where logical (such as sports MMOs) that still fit within the spirit of what an MMO is.
3. The game must make use of persistent characters. This means that you should be able to log in after logging out and find your character as advanced as you left them (or more).
4. The game must contain some form of advancement.
I think point number 1 is the best definition of an MMO. Does Diablo 3 even have servers that you connect to (beside Battle net)?
If not then it really cannot be considered an MMO.
I think another defintion that needs to be added is that the world needs to be persistant. I.e. when you log of the world continues (indefinetely), not sure if that is the case with Diable 3. It certainly was not with Diable 1 & 2.
D2 is just as persistent as wow, and most other linear mmos. It's not a mmo, but it is persistent.
There are also multiple D2 servers, e.g. useast/west, eu, etc. Those servers just have a whole bunch more characters on them than any modern mmo.
The only area D2 fails in as far as "being a mmo", is point two, common areas. D2 is all about shared instancing of zones. You can never have more than 8 people in the same place at the same time, at least not in graphical form. This right here is the only "requirement" that prevents D2 from being a mmo. Admittedly, it does not have the scale and scope of a modern mmo, but that's not really part of the requirements being discussed.
Well, D3 won't be a mmo, at least not in the formal definition. Although the game is persistent, the zone instancing basically disqualifies it from being a mmo. That being said, I'd rather play d2 or d3 than any mmo on the market right now, despite the fact that those games don't include some mmo components that are very important to me. Also, D3 will likely have more people playing it than wow. I say that because back when EQ was king and 400k players was considered a lot, D2 had millions. No monthly fee, nearly unlimited replayability, and a phat loot drive like no other. What's not to like. I even expect that D3 will take away many mmo subscribers. Yet, despite taking away the same market segment, it's still not a mmo. :P
Exactly. I plan to play it and see if it is more fun than WOW. It is silly to marry to a particular genre. I will play watever that entertains me.
Then we will see games copying Diablo 3, changing the minimum they can (i.e. adding a visual lobby where people can see each other) and label it MMO and start asking subscription fees or blatantly destroying fair competitiveness selling in-game power with overused excuses like "not everyone has time to play all day" or "we have to maintain the servers".
i have play d1 and 2 and i did it like i would an mmo, not just in single player but on bnet aswell its not an mmo like swg, ao, wow in general but if mmorpg wants to host the hip of the game i say let them, it will help guide the game info until release date
Sounds like half of you don't know what an MMORPG is, the inventor, creator, of the acronym M.M.O.R.P.G. was Richard Garriott aka Lord British, he dubed that term because according to him and he being the creator has a right to choose what is technichally an mmorpg and what isn't, but MASSIVE = 1,000+ players on one static map in one server, period, I'm not sure if Meridian 59 ever broke that record but UO broke the record for 12,000+ players online in 1997, I was there testing when they broke the record, so some could argue massive is 10,000, I would say it's at least 1,000 personally, Diablo I, II, III and any of those other CORPG games don't even remotely come close to 1,000, but I would guess even 100 people on 1 map some would consider to be massive, and thus Guild Wars allowing at least 100 people in the city areas will technichally qualify it as closer to mmorpg than corpg even though you are forced to join a small party to explore, I hope Diablo III will be an mmorpg, at least a tiny scale one allowing more than freaking 8 people per map, when the Diablo 3 forum came up and they took suggestions mine was make it fully mmorpg, or at least make a town trade city server where at least 100 players can trade, it is a pain in the ass making 100 and joining 1,000 games to hawk your goods in diablo 2, it's so annoying that it's one of the main reasons I didn't play the game after beating it.
Speaking of mmorpgs, I'm looking for a 2d or 2d attempting to look like 3d mmorpg, similar to UO.
Sounds like half of you don't know what an MMORPG is, the inventor, creator, of the acronym M.M.O.R.P.G. was Richard Garriott aka Lord British, he dubed that term because according to him and he being the creator has a right to choose what is technichally an mmorpg and what isn't, but MASSIVE = 1,000+ players on one static map in one server, period, I'm not sure if Meridian 59 ever broke that record but UO broke the record for 12,000+ players online in 1997, I was there testing when they broke the record, so some could argue massive is 10,000, I would say it's at least 1,000 personally, Diablo I, II, III and any of those other CORPG games don't even remotely come close to 1,000, but I would guess even 100 people on 1 map some would consider to be massive, and thus Guild Wars allowing at least 100 people in the city areas will technichally qualify it as closer to mmorpg than corpg even though you are forced to join a small party to explore, I hope Diablo III will be an mmorpg, at least a tiny scale one allowing more than freaking 8 people per map, when the Diablo 3 forum came up and they took suggestions mine was make it fully mmorpg, or at least make a town trade city server where at least 100 players can trade, it is a pain in the ass making 100 and joining 1,000 games to hawk your goods in diablo 2, it's so annoying that it's one of the main reasons I didn't play the game after beating it. Speaking of mmorpgs, I'm looking for a 2d or 2d attempting to look like 3d mmorpg, similar to UO.
The term MMOG was already used long before Richard Garriot, The only thing Richard Gariott added was the Role Playing part.
Well to me it is not really the point of what should be on mmorpg.com
I don't mind if mmorpg.com expands their definition beyond mmo's, like exteel, rakion or the diablo series. They could start to include any online game with some persistance built into it.
What does bother me is that mmorpg.com makes a solid definition of what they think should fit on the site, later on change this definition to allow exceptions and then arbitrary choose which they allow and which not, without following a clear policy.
But for the record, the original definition that mmorpg.com used is to me the best definition I have found so far as to what an mmorpg is. And no, it are not the publishers or developpers that get to decide what an mmorpg is and what not, that is decided by the general population ( all of us ), or at least all of us that come in contact with mmorpg's.
If you are interested in subscription or PCU numbers for MMORPG's, check out my site : http://mmodata.blogspot.be/ Favorite MMORPG's : DAoC pre ToA-NF, SWG Pre CU-NGE, EVE Online
Sounds like half of you don't know what an MMORPG is, the inventor, creator, of the acronym M.M.O.R.P.G. was Richard Garriott aka Lord British, he dubed that term because according to him and he being the creator has a right to choose what is technichally an mmorpg and what isn't, but MASSIVE = 1,000+ players on one static map in one server, period, I'm not sure if Meridian 59 ever broke that record but UO broke the record for 12,000+ players online in 1997, I was there testing when they broke the record, so some could argue massive is 10,000, I would say it's at least 1,000 personally, Diablo I, II, III and any of those other CORPG games don't even remotely come close to 1,000, but I would guess even 100 people on 1 map some would consider to be massive, and thus Guild Wars allowing at least 100 people in the city areas will technichally qualify it as closer to mmorpg than corpg even though you are forced to join a small party to explore, I hope Diablo III will be an mmorpg, at least a tiny scale one allowing more than freaking 8 people per map, when the Diablo 3 forum came up and they took suggestions mine was make it fully mmorpg, or at least make a town trade city server where at least 100 players can trade, it is a pain in the ass making 100 and joining 1,000 games to hawk your goods in diablo 2, it's so annoying that it's one of the main reasons I didn't play the game after beating it. Speaking of mmorpgs, I'm looking for a 2d or 2d attempting to look like 3d mmorpg, similar to UO.
The term MMOG was already used long before Richard Garriot, The only thing Richard Gariott added was the Role Playing part.
I never mentioned 'mmog', Garriott coined as I specifically said 'MMORPG', look it up, it's a fact, unlike yourself I actually speak the facts, newb.
Sounds like half of you don't know what an MMORPG is, the inventor, creator, of the acronym M.M.O.R.P.G. was Richard Garriott aka Lord British, he dubed that term because according to him and he being the creator has a right to choose what is technichally an mmorpg and what isn't, but MASSIVE = 1,000+ players on one static map in one server, period, I'm not sure if Meridian 59 ever broke that record but UO broke the record for 12,000+ players online in 1997, I was there testing when they broke the record, so some could argue massive is 10,000, I would say it's at least 1,000 personally, Diablo I, II, III and any of those other CORPG games don't even remotely come close to 1,000, but I would guess even 100 people on 1 map some would consider to be massive, and thus Guild Wars allowing at least 100 people in the city areas will technichally qualify it as closer to mmorpg than corpg even though you are forced to join a small party to explore, I hope Diablo III will be an mmorpg, at least a tiny scale one allowing more than freaking 8 people per map, when the Diablo 3 forum came up and they took suggestions mine was make it fully mmorpg, or at least make a town trade city server where at least 100 players can trade, it is a pain in the ass making 100 and joining 1,000 games to hawk your goods in diablo 2, it's so annoying that it's one of the main reasons I didn't play the game after beating it. Speaking of mmorpgs, I'm looking for a 2d or 2d attempting to look like 3d mmorpg, similar to UO.
Would you believe that one of the early design decision in D3 was to *decrease* group size? At the time, they were aiming for 4-5 max, and I have heard of no updates since that contradict this. Something tells me D3 may be even further from a mmo than what D2 was. Sort of scary, eh?
Comments
yep it's why hellgate london is not listed, those other games have only online play and count as mmo's because they are only multiplayer and only online. Exsteel is just like fury in that aspect, so tecnically yes they are mmo's just not mmo rpgs. cause there is no rpg aspect.
Well, mmorpg.com does have a standard for this :
1. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology.
2. The game must include some form of common area where players can interact with one another inside of the persistent game world. This excludes lobby and chat room based interaction. Exceptions are made where logical (such as sports MMOs) that still fit within the spirit of what an MMO is.
3. The game must make use of persistent characters. This means that you should be able to log in after logging out and find your character as advanced as you left them (or more).
4. The game must contain some form of advancement.
Seems they did water down number 2, generally they don't allow lobby's and chatrooms, but may make exceptions, hmm.
I found the old phrasing for point 2 : "The game must include some form of graphical common area. This distinction means Diablo II is not considered an MMORPG, while Guild Wars is. " Imho, this was a much better definition.In the past we held heated arguments about how Guild Wars was not an mmorpg, but in the end, I could live with the old definition mmorpg.com made, furthermore, it is not because Arenanet says their game is a CORPG, that it is actually true, and if the rest of the world makes a definition about what an mmog is, who are they to tell otherwise ...
Following their current definition, a game should have an area where at least 500 players can come together to socialize ( unless they make an exception, hrm ). So basically, mmorpg.com just made an exception for Rakion, altho they are supposed to only make these if they are logical, in this case it clearly isn't logical. And I bet it is not logical for many other so called mmo's like Exteel ( I don't know much about his game ).
It seems they are sliding away again, and yes, it makes perfect sence to add Diablo III if they allow Rakion. Diablo III is probably even more of an mmorpg, because there is alot more advancement in it, the only thing you could argue is that there is not enough information available to make a decision.
Either way, imho mmorpg.com made a mistake to allow "exceptions", because it is clear decisions are now made arbitrary and not following certain procedures.
If you are interested in subscription or PCU numbers for MMORPG's, check out my site :
http://mmodata.blogspot.be/
Favorite MMORPG's : DAoC pre ToA-NF, SWG Pre CU-NGE, EVE Online
you stole my signature!
nice try buddy, but i had this sig the first day the cg came out.
Huh ... But Hellgate London IS listed on ... mmorpg.com.
Like a poster said above: you could OR narrow the definitions (but then GW is also in discussion to be included) OR you could widen the definition (but then you would have to include about all games being played as mmo's).
Personally I am against games which are completely made up of instances and almost NO free world to walk in. You do need to have a world setting somewhere and you DO need to have seperate instances (like going to a cinema or football stadium). But the "world" has to be in there.
The moment a world is cut up into instances BECAUSE of the preloading Hi Res graphics and lazyness of the programmers to not do something around "background graphics loading", that game ceases to be an mmorpg for me.
So COD"X" - even with a "leveling" or gear advance, could never be considered an mmorpg, because of the graphics loading screens and no coherent world. An example of this in an mmorpg?... City of Heroes (but many others could be cited too).
I agree with you, the problem is, as I stated above, that mmorpg.com made a good definition, and then changed it to allow "exceptions".
In that definition, Guild Wars is an mmorpg, but Diablo II and most likely Diablo III are not.
If you are interested in subscription or PCU numbers for MMORPG's, check out my site :
http://mmodata.blogspot.be/
Favorite MMORPG's : DAoC pre ToA-NF, SWG Pre CU-NGE, EVE Online
I think it's based mostly (or wholly) on what the developers/publishers of the games themselves choose to identify, represent, and market themselves as. Rather than MMORPG.com looking at every game that comes out and deciding themselves which ones they consider "true MMORPGs" and which ones they don't.
Originally posted by Wighty
It's like the latest batch of MMO's are like a f'n Kevin Costner movie... <think Waterworld, the Postman, etc> they cost a FORTUNE, they sound like they may be good but then you just realized you sat around for 3 hours of WTF...
I personally wouldnt considder it as an MMO because it is not an online-only game. It is rather a single player game with multiplayer functionality. Using the criteria of lobbys as to why D3 should not be included, Guild Wars for instance should not be included aswell. But GW is an online-only game, it cannot fit into any other group but MMO(RPG)s even though officialy it isnt one.
I dont know about other listed games having offline functionality, ive never played them, If they do have offline functionality, than i would not list them as MMORPGs.
I think point number 1 is the best definition of an MMO. Does Diablo 3 even have servers that you connect to (beside Battle net)?
If not then it really cannot be considered an MMO.
I think another defintion that needs to be added is that the world needs to be persistant. I.e. when you log of the world continues (indefinetely), not sure if that is the case with Diable 3. It certainly was not with Diable 1 & 2.
My gaming blog
WoW rulez, all other sux
Playing: Rohan
Played (from best to worst): Shadowbane, Guild Wars, Shayia, Age of Conan, Warhammer, Runes of Magic, Rappelz, Archlord, Knight online, King of Kings, Kal online, Last chaos
Hypocrisy.
Well, D3 won't be a mmo, at least not in the formal definition. Although the game is persistent, the zone instancing basically disqualifies it from being a mmo. That being said, I'd rather play d2 or d3 than any mmo on the market right now, despite the fact that those games don't include some mmo components that are very important to me. Also, D3 will likely have more people playing it than wow. I say that because back when EQ was king and 400k players was considered a lot, D2 had millions. No monthly fee, nearly unlimited replayability, and a phat loot drive like no other. What's not to like.
I even expect that D3 will take away many mmo subscribers. Yet, despite taking away the same market segment, it's still not a mmo. :P
I think point number 1 is the best definition of an MMO. Does Diablo 3 even have servers that you connect to (beside Battle net)?
If not then it really cannot be considered an MMO.
I think another defintion that needs to be added is that the world needs to be persistant. I.e. when you log of the world continues (indefinetely), not sure if that is the case with Diable 3. It certainly was not with Diable 1 & 2.
D2 is just as persistent as wow, and most other linear mmos. It's not a mmo, but it is persistent.
There are also multiple D2 servers, e.g. useast/west, eu, etc. Those servers just have a whole bunch more characters on them than any modern mmo.
The only area D2 fails in as far as "being a mmo", is point two, common areas. D2 is all about shared instancing of zones. You can never have more than 8 people in the same place at the same time, at least not in graphical form. This right here is the only "requirement" that prevents D2 from being a mmo. Admittedly, it does not have the scale and scope of a modern mmo, but that's not really part of the requirements being discussed.
Exactly. I plan to play it and see if it is more fun than WOW. It is silly to marry to a particular genre. I will play watever that entertains me.
Then we will see games copying Diablo 3, changing the minimum they can (i.e. adding a visual lobby where people can see each other) and label it MMO and start asking subscription fees or blatantly destroying fair competitiveness selling in-game power with overused excuses like "not everyone has time to play all day" or "we have to maintain the servers".
Years before, its already old.
i have play d1 and 2 and i did it like i would an mmo, not just in single player but on bnet aswell its not an mmo like swg, ao, wow in general but if mmorpg wants to host the hip of the game i say let them, it will help guide the game info until release date
If they aren't MMORPG's what genre are they?
They aren't single player because they have multiplayer aspects.
Misewell just expand the genre.
However this doesn't mean we have to add games like Gunz, WarRock, etc. since those are MMOFPS/MMORTS/MMOTPS
Sounds like half of you don't know what an MMORPG is, the inventor, creator, of the acronym M.M.O.R.P.G. was Richard Garriott aka Lord British, he dubed that term because according to him and he being the creator has a right to choose what is technichally an mmorpg and what isn't, but MASSIVE = 1,000+ players on one static map in one server, period, I'm not sure if Meridian 59 ever broke that record but UO broke the record for 12,000+ players online in 1997, I was there testing when they broke the record, so some could argue massive is 10,000, I would say it's at least 1,000 personally, Diablo I, II, III and any of those other CORPG games don't even remotely come close to 1,000, but I would guess even 100 people on 1 map some would consider to be massive, and thus Guild Wars allowing at least 100 people in the city areas will technichally qualify it as closer to mmorpg than corpg even though you are forced to join a small party to explore, I hope Diablo III will be an mmorpg, at least a tiny scale one allowing more than freaking 8 people per map, when the Diablo 3 forum came up and they took suggestions mine was make it fully mmorpg, or at least make a town trade city server where at least 100 players can trade, it is a pain in the ass making 100 and joining 1,000 games to hawk your goods in diablo 2, it's so annoying that it's one of the main reasons I didn't play the game after beating it.
Speaking of mmorpgs, I'm looking for a 2d or 2d attempting to look like 3d mmorpg, similar to UO.
--- Razimus
The term MMOG was already used long before Richard Garriot, The only thing Richard Gariott added was the Role Playing part.
Well to me it is not really the point of what should be on mmorpg.com
I don't mind if mmorpg.com expands their definition beyond mmo's, like exteel, rakion or the diablo series. They could start to include any online game with some persistance built into it.
What does bother me is that mmorpg.com makes a solid definition of what they think should fit on the site, later on change this definition to allow exceptions and then arbitrary choose which they allow and which not, without following a clear policy.
But for the record, the original definition that mmorpg.com used is to me the best definition I have found so far as to what an mmorpg is. And no, it are not the publishers or developpers that get to decide what an mmorpg is and what not, that is decided by the general population ( all of us ), or at least all of us that come in contact with mmorpg's.
If you are interested in subscription or PCU numbers for MMORPG's, check out my site :
http://mmodata.blogspot.be/
Favorite MMORPG's : DAoC pre ToA-NF, SWG Pre CU-NGE, EVE Online
The term MMOG was already used long before Richard Garriot, The only thing Richard Gariott added was the Role Playing part.
I never mentioned 'mmog', Garriott coined as I specifically said 'MMORPG', look it up, it's a fact, unlike yourself I actually speak the facts, newb.
--- Razimus
Would you believe that one of the early design decision in D3 was to *decrease* group size? At the time, they were aiming for 4-5 max, and I have heard of no updates since that contradict this. Something tells me D3 may be even further from a mmo than what D2 was. Sort of scary, eh?