every fps since Quake 2 has had online ability does that make them MMO's? no. just because something is online does not make it a MMO.
So? MMO is just a common label .. it is stick to LoL, and WoT but not CoD. So what .. it is how the term is commonly used now. Looking for some deeper meaning is just .... not very useful.
It's not how it's commonly used. Only people advertising free2play use it that way in my opinion.
Then you are not paying attention.
Industry research firms like newzoo and superdata include LoL and WoT in the MMO category. Many MMORPG sites (including this one) put them on MMO lists, and have forums for them.
Industry research firms like newzoo and superdata include LoL and WoT in the MMO category. Many MMORPG sites (including this one) put them on MMO lists, and have forums for them.
Who cares? Even if millions of people for some bizarre reason started calling apples oranges it doesn't suddenly make apples and oranges the same. All you have to do is break down the MMORPG acronym. These games don't match on 2 of the 4 components.
Should I call Europa Universalis an MMORPG because I can play it online with many players at once? Doesn't it just make more sense to say I can like games which aren't MMORPGs? I don't understand why people act like MMORPG is a badge of quality rather than just a neutral term for a particular type of game.
Like Lizard said, definitions change. Also your initial defining point of "thousands of players" isn't true at all. Lineage, one of the first MMOs couldn't handle thousands on the server at once. It could handle a several hundred at best and not all in the same place at once. Early in the game, during sieges framerates dropped to freezeframe speeds with a couple hundred in the area at once.
So it's not clear and cut, because it is subjective. The term was coined off hand in a social context, not bourne of some sort of mathematical or scientific definition.
In my opinion, there is no need to create a bunch of new acronyms. Even if we did, is it realistic to think we would affect and influence tens of millions of other gamers into buying our definition? As a society our terms and definitions will evolve, just like the concept of MMO has evolved from 2003 to 2013.
Even the holy grail SWG could barely handle a couple hundred in the same place. It became a slideshow the second anything happened like PVP.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Industry research firms like newzoo and superdata include LoL and WoT in the MMO category. Many MMORPG sites (including this one) put them on MMO lists, and have forums for them.
Who cares? Even if millions of people for some bizarre reason started calling apples oranges it doesn't suddenly make apples and oranges the same. All you have to do is break down the MMORPG acronym. These games don't match on 2 of the 4 components.
Who cares? Those who want to communicate effectively.
If most of the population call apples oranges ... "orange" will be the new name for apples.
Those "components" are just meaningless. Most of WoW's gameplay are instanced and not massive. In fact, most people here are complaining MMOs are no longer massive. Who cares about literal definitions except a small number of people here?
MMO is just a convenient label, and i will use it as such, according to common usage.
Is it realistic to think we would affect and influence tens of millions of other gamers into buying our definition?
At the risk of sounding naive: Why not?
If there's anything I've learned by being a citizen of the Internet since '95, it's that you'll never know what gets picked up? Like, who would have known lolcats would be our gods when they designed ArpaNet?
Seriously though, why not? If we'd put our heads together, coin a term with a well defined (not to be read as: specifically) prerequisite that reflects basic principles of what [we] define (take for granted) as an MMORPG, it could happen.
Because the terms as you propose - ways to create arbitrary subsets based on personal preference - only serve to make things more complicated. It doesn't make anything easier to understand or more efficient to categorize, especially when the dividing line is based on subjective segregation - "I don't like those games so I don't want them in the same category as the ones I like."
Most of the original terms were created my marketers for specific titles (and argued over just as vehemently a decade ago as today)--why would the publishers give up the free promotion? "We gave our game a new acronym because it's soooo different" -- obvious sell-more-boxes smoke and mirrors, and one that's already been used many times.
I've actually had that discussion several times in various circles, and what you say rings true but only when the game really does benefit from another title. Examples of that are Guild Wars' "CORPG" and the recent revival of the term "Action RPG" (thank you, Nexon!).
However, there has been little benefit in trying to relabel under a different term for most MMOs, as gamers (outside of these forums) readily understood what "MMO" means. Introducing a new term means having to get people to learn it, which then means that interview time, ad space and messaging real estate has to now be divided between teaching people the new term and then selling the value of it.
But the term itself carries too much baggage these days, so you rarely see it mentioned for the newer titles. GW2, Dragon's Prophet, Everquest Next, Wildstar... you'll notice that the term is almost non-existent on their sites. Some never mention it at all. Creating a new term would simply pigeonhole the game into a different bucket, so it's easier to just describe your game for what it is with a smattering of "immersive" and "online world" here and there to hit the key points without labeling.
And then have the reader go....oh it's an mmo.
Pretty much.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Who cares? Those who want to communicate effectively.
If most of the population call apples oranges ... "orange" will be the new name for apples.
Those "components" are just meaningless. Most of WoW's gameplay are instanced and not massive. In fact, most people here are complaining MMOs are no longer massive. Who cares about literal definitions except a small number of people here?
MMO is just a convenient label, and i will use it as such, according to common usage.
I'd say effective communication requires people to agree on basic meanings of words. What happens to actual oranges when people start calling apples oranges? It just becomes incredibly confusing what people are actually talking about.
A label is useless if you just stick it on whatever you want and no one knows what you mean by it.
Originally posted by iridescence Originally posted by nariusseldon
Industry research firms like newzoo and superdata include LoL and WoT in the MMO category. Many MMORPG sites (including this one) put them on MMO lists, and have forums for them.Who cares? Even if millions of people for some bizarre reason started calling apples oranges it doesn't suddenly make apples and oranges the same. All you have to do is break down the MMORPG acronym. These games don't match on 2 of the 4 components.
Should I call Europa Universalis an MMORPG because I can play it online with many players at once? Doesn't it just make more sense to say I can like games which aren't MMORPGs? I don't understand why people act like MMORPG is a badge of quality rather than just a neutral term for a particular type of game.
If you look up the definition on the internet, as people may be inclined to do, you get this:
A massively multiplayer online game. A computer game in which a large number of players can simultaneously interact in a persistent world or can potentially play against a large number of players in matchmaking; A massively multiplayer online role-playing game
That's from Wiktionary, where people can edit the entries. It's as close to a general consensus as is possible.
LoL, WoT and D3 all fit that definition. There is justification for doing so. What is your justification for not doing so, other than your own personal view?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by syriinx MMO used to be shorthand for MMORPG. It no longer is, MMO now just applies to games where you have a decent amount people online together at a time. MMORPG is a much more specific term. Defiance is not a MMORPG. Star Citizen is not a MMORPG. WoT is not a MMORPG. They are MMOs though.
Actually, it still is used as an alternate term for MMORPG, but that is the colloquial usage, not the common usage.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
If you look up the definition on the internet, as people may be inclined to do, you get this:
A massively multiplayer online game. A computer game in which a large number of players can simultaneously interact in a persistent world or can potentially play against a large number of players in matchmaking; A massively multiplayer online role-playing game
I think the fact that there's a 7 page thread about this shows there's no real consensus about this just because someone put that definition up on some fairly obscure site and no one has bothered to change it doesn't make it more correct than my definition (which comes from my understanding of what the terms "massively" and "role playing game" mean.) The definition you quoted could just be acronymed with "multiplayer online game". Why even use extra words when you don't have to and they aren't even accurate?
Who cares? Those who want to communicate effectively.
If most of the population call apples oranges ... "orange" will be the new name for apples.
Those "components" are just meaningless. Most of WoW's gameplay are instanced and not massive. In fact, most people here are complaining MMOs are no longer massive. Who cares about literal definitions except a small number of people here?
MMO is just a convenient label, and i will use it as such, according to common usage.
I'd say effective communication requires people to agree on basic meanings of words. What happens to actual oranges when people start calling apples oranges? It just becomes incredibly confusing what people are actually talking about.
A label is useless if you just stick it on whatever you want and no one knows what you mean by it.
I
It is not confusing when industry research firms, and mmo sites are including games like LoL and WoT in the MMO category. In fact, people here are pretty much aware of that because every time a newzoo or superdata report is cited, the issue of inclusion of some of these games are raised.
So you can't really claim people are not aware of the inclusion. They may not like it, but you can hardly claim that it is confusing here.
It isn't confusing, they list LoL and other games, due to this being a game site, they are popular, but no mmos....It is a convenience, not a labeling decision. They have even said they know it isn't quite right, and will be putting in filters (site revamp) to make it so you can take the non-mmo stuff like mobas out of your view, if you wish.
So maybe that will help people, if they are confused? I doubt they are though, it is pretty easy to spot the pretenders.
Industry research firms like newzoo and superdata include LoL and WoT in the MMO category. Many MMORPG sites (including this one) put them on MMO lists, and have forums for them.
Who cares? Even if millions of people for some bizarre reason started calling apples oranges it doesn't suddenly make apples and oranges the same. All you have to do is break down the MMORPG acronym. These games don't match on 2 of the 4 components.
Should I call Europa Universalis an MMORPG because I can play it online with many players at once? Doesn't it just make more sense to say I can like games which aren't MMORPGs? I don't understand why people act like MMORPG is a badge of quality rather than just a neutral term for a particular type of game.
If you look up the definition on the internet, as people may be inclined to do, you get this:
A massively multiplayer online game. A computer game in which a large number of players can simultaneously interact in a persistent world or can potentially play against a large number of players in matchmaking; A massively multiplayer online role-playing game
That's from Wiktionary, where people can edit the entries. It's as close to a general consensus as is possible.
LoL, WoT and D3 all fit that definition. There is justification for doing so. What is your justification for not doing so, other than your own personal view?
I beg to differ. "Simultaneously Interact" refers to "computer game." You would have to expand the definition of what the game is to shoehorn the MMO definition to fit. Having the global chat or the auction house or even the lobbies be "massively multiplayer" (even if they were...they are in fact limited to a small quantity of players) while having the game play limited to a handful of players doesn't qualify.
The confusion comes in because games where you can have massively multiplayer game play ALSO have small-group instanced content and they also have global chat and auction houses. But there is in fact game play there where massive numbers of players can interact with the game all together in one place and actually do the thing (i.e. fight) that players think of as "the game," not just the game-support functions like chat and buying/selling. We don't spend time making decisions on which class to choose and which spec path to go down so we can chat and shop.
Using the loose definition would make any game in any social network an MMO because you have unlimited interaction with the network at large while you do whatever else it is you're doing.
All that having a loose, all-inclusive, definition accomplishes is to render the term meaningless... which leads us right back to the OP: if the phrase and acronym have become meaningless we do need new ones.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
MOBAs are not at all an MMO in any way shape or form. Only 10 people can play in one place at one time, games have been able to do that for decades and they were never called MMOs.
In FPS games I can have 40-50 or even more people shooting each other on a map, that is far more than a MOBA and they are not MMOs.
An MMO would require the possibility for 1000s of people to be logged into the same world at the same time and have the possibility of coming across each other. A MOBA does not come anywhere near this as you are in your 5v5 match and other people are in there's and none of them are linked or able to cross over.
So that is in part the problem. People keep tossing MMO onto things that aren't even in the realm of what an MMO is because they are confused. MMO does not mean thousands are playing the same game at the same time. Online video games have had this forever and none of them were called that. MMO means a massive amount of people can all interact IN THE WORLD (not a lobby) at the same time.
All that having a loose, all-inclusive, definition accomplishes is to render the term meaningless... which leads us right back to the OP: if the phrase and acronym have become meaningless we do need new ones.
For whom?
People here on the forum are so familiar with the games that no categorization is actually needed. It is just endless debate and examples of whether one games should be a MMO or not, all for forum pvp and brownie points.
The impact of posts here are so low that even if we all agree with a new term (which will not happen in a billion years), it will not be adopted by the whole market. So it is pointless even to suggest we can change how games are label in the world.
So the question is moot. The only function of such a discussion is to add some fun to the forum participants, particular those who want to pvp about what mmo is "about", or what is the "original intentions", or what does the words literally means. All good fun, but unimportant to most in the gaming world.
All that having a loose, all-inclusive, definition accomplishes is to render the term meaningless... which leads us right back to the OP: if the phrase and acronym have become meaningless we do need new ones.
For whom?
People here on the forum are so familiar with the games that no categorization is actually needed. It is just endless debate and examples of whether one games should be a MMO or not, all for forum pvp and brownie points.
The impact of posts here are so low that even if we all agree with a new term (which will not happen in a billion years), it will not be adopted by the whole market. So it is pointless even to suggest we can change how games are label in the world.
So the question is moot. The only function of such a discussion is to add some fun to the forum participants, particular those who want to pvp about what mmo is "about", or what is the "original intentions", or what does the words literally means. All good fun, but unimportant to most in the gaming world.
For us of course. Did you think either the OP or myself want Forbes or People magazine to use the acronym correctly?
And from some hints I've read about what mmorpg.com is about to do with their new website design, it may become a moot point anyway.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
All that having a loose, all-inclusive, definition accomplishes is to render the term meaningless... which leads us right back to the OP: if the phrase and acronym have become meaningless we do need new ones.
For whom?
People here on the forum are so familiar with the games that no categorization is actually needed. It is just endless debate and examples of whether one games should be a MMO or not, all for forum pvp and brownie points.
The impact of posts here are so low that even if we all agree with a new term (which will not happen in a billion years), it will not be adopted by the whole market. So it is pointless even to suggest we can change how games are label in the world.
So the question is moot. The only function of such a discussion is to add some fun to the forum participants, particular those who want to pvp about what mmo is "about", or what is the "original intentions", or what does the words literally means. All good fun, but unimportant to most in the gaming world.
For us of course. Did you think either the OP or myself want Forbes or People magazine to use the acronym correctly?
And from some hints I've read about what mmorpg.com is about to do with their new website design, it may become a moot point anyway.
We need new definition the least for communication. People here are so familiar with the games and there is no confusing of what people are talking about.
New definition is just a way to add some more forum pvp. Or may be we "need" it because we want to create more debate?
All that having a loose, all-inclusive, definition accomplishes is to render the term meaningless... which leads us right back to the OP: if the phrase and acronym have become meaningless we do need new ones.
For whom?
People here on the forum are so familiar with the games that no categorization is actually needed. It is just endless debate and examples of whether one games should be a MMO or not, all for forum pvp and brownie points.
The impact of posts here are so low that even if we all agree with a new term (which will not happen in a billion years), it will not be adopted by the whole market. So it is pointless even to suggest we can change how games are label in the world.
So the question is moot. The only function of such a discussion is to add some fun to the forum participants, particular those who want to pvp about what mmo is "about", or what is the "original intentions", or what does the words literally means. All good fun, but unimportant to most in the gaming world.
For us of course. Did you think either the OP or myself want Forbes or People magazine to use the acronym correctly?
And from some hints I've read about what mmorpg.com is about to do with their new website design, it may become a moot point anyway.
We need new definition the least for communication. People here are so familiar with the games and there is no confusing of what people are talking about.
New definition is just a way to add some more forum pvp. Or may be we "need" it because we want to create more debate?
Nah. Filtering out what I consider to be pseudo-MMOs, as Bill suggests we'll soon be able to do, would satisfy me completely.
I also play a lot of games that are not MMOs by any definition. if I want to chat about those or want reviews and articles about them I wouldn't come here. But then again, maybe Madden, NHL and FIFA ARE MMOs. They certainly fit the all-inclusive expanded definitions some like to use.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Originally posted by DamonVile I think the fact that they used the term mmog disqualifies them as people that should be making the definition for the genre
Lol. I agree completely.
How about MMOWS? Why doesn't massively multiplayer online web surfing get any respect?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I consider MMO as a broad category for games with publisher provided multiplayer servers (as opposed to player operated like the FPS days). That seems to be how the industry, and certainly many players, are using it also.
I think the confusion is that many treat MMO as an abbreviation for MMORPG. To me, they are two different animals.
For me, MMORPGs are MMOs but not all MMOs are MMORPGs.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
Comments
Then you are not paying attention.
Industry research firms like newzoo and superdata include LoL and WoT in the MMO category. Many MMORPG sites (including this one) put them on MMO lists, and have forums for them.
Who cares? Even if millions of people for some bizarre reason started calling apples oranges it doesn't suddenly make apples and oranges the same. All you have to do is break down the MMORPG acronym. These games don't match on 2 of the 4 components.
Should I call Europa Universalis an MMORPG because I can play it online with many players at once? Doesn't it just make more sense to say I can like games which aren't MMORPGs? I don't understand why people act like MMORPG is a badge of quality rather than just a neutral term for a particular type of game.
Even the holy grail SWG could barely handle a couple hundred in the same place. It became a slideshow the second anything happened like PVP.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Who cares? Those who want to communicate effectively.
If most of the population call apples oranges ... "orange" will be the new name for apples.
Those "components" are just meaningless. Most of WoW's gameplay are instanced and not massive. In fact, most people here are complaining MMOs are no longer massive. Who cares about literal definitions except a small number of people here?
MMO is just a convenient label, and i will use it as such, according to common usage.
Pretty much.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
MMO used to be shorthand for MMORPG.
It no longer is, MMO now just applies to games where you have a decent amount people online together at a time. MMORPG is a much more specific term.
Defiance is not a MMORPG. Star Citizen is not a MMORPG. WoT is not a MMORPG. They are MMOs though.
I'd say effective communication requires people to agree on basic meanings of words. What happens to actual oranges when people start calling apples oranges? It just becomes incredibly confusing what people are actually talking about.
A label is useless if you just stick it on whatever you want and no one knows what you mean by it.
I
Who cares? Even if millions of people for some bizarre reason started calling apples oranges it doesn't suddenly make apples and oranges the same. All you have to do is break down the MMORPG acronym. These games don't match on 2 of the 4 components.
Should I call Europa Universalis an MMORPG because I can play it online with many players at once? Doesn't it just make more sense to say I can like games which aren't MMORPGs? I don't understand why people act like MMORPG is a badge of quality rather than just a neutral term for a particular type of game.
If you look up the definition on the internet, as people may be inclined to do, you get this:
That's from Wiktionary, where people can edit the entries. It's as close to a general consensus as is possible.
LoL, WoT and D3 all fit that definition. There is justification for doing so. What is your justification for not doing so, other than your own personal view?
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Actually, it still is used as an alternate term for MMORPG, but that is the colloquial usage, not the common usage.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I think the fact that there's a 7 page thread about this shows there's no real consensus about this just because someone put that definition up on some fairly obscure site and no one has bothered to change it doesn't make it more correct than my definition (which comes from my understanding of what the terms "massively" and "role playing game" mean.) The definition you quoted could just be acronymed with "multiplayer online game". Why even use extra words when you don't have to and they aren't even accurate?
It is not confusing when industry research firms, and mmo sites are including games like LoL and WoT in the MMO category. In fact, people here are pretty much aware of that because every time a newzoo or superdata report is cited, the issue of inclusion of some of these games are raised.
So you can't really claim people are not aware of the inclusion. They may not like it, but you can hardly claim that it is confusing here.
It isn't confusing, they list LoL and other games, due to this being a game site, they are popular, but no mmos....It is a convenience, not a labeling decision. They have even said they know it isn't quite right, and will be putting in filters (site revamp) to make it so you can take the non-mmo stuff like mobas out of your view, if you wish.
So maybe that will help people, if they are confused? I doubt they are though, it is pretty easy to spot the pretenders.
I beg to differ. "Simultaneously Interact" refers to "computer game." You would have to expand the definition of what the game is to shoehorn the MMO definition to fit. Having the global chat or the auction house or even the lobbies be "massively multiplayer" (even if they were...they are in fact limited to a small quantity of players) while having the game play limited to a handful of players doesn't qualify.
The confusion comes in because games where you can have massively multiplayer game play ALSO have small-group instanced content and they also have global chat and auction houses. But there is in fact game play there where massive numbers of players can interact with the game all together in one place and actually do the thing (i.e. fight) that players think of as "the game," not just the game-support functions like chat and buying/selling. We don't spend time making decisions on which class to choose and which spec path to go down so we can chat and shop.
Using the loose definition would make any game in any social network an MMO because you have unlimited interaction with the network at large while you do whatever else it is you're doing.
All that having a loose, all-inclusive, definition accomplishes is to render the term meaningless... which leads us right back to the OP: if the phrase and acronym have become meaningless we do need new ones.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
MOBAs are not at all an MMO in any way shape or form. Only 10 people can play in one place at one time, games have been able to do that for decades and they were never called MMOs.
In FPS games I can have 40-50 or even more people shooting each other on a map, that is far more than a MOBA and they are not MMOs.
An MMO would require the possibility for 1000s of people to be logged into the same world at the same time and have the possibility of coming across each other. A MOBA does not come anywhere near this as you are in your 5v5 match and other people are in there's and none of them are linked or able to cross over.
So that is in part the problem. People keep tossing MMO onto things that aren't even in the realm of what an MMO is because they are confused. MMO does not mean thousands are playing the same game at the same time. Online video games have had this forever and none of them were called that. MMO means a massive amount of people can all interact IN THE WORLD (not a lobby) at the same time.
For whom?
People here on the forum are so familiar with the games that no categorization is actually needed. It is just endless debate and examples of whether one games should be a MMO or not, all for forum pvp and brownie points.
The impact of posts here are so low that even if we all agree with a new term (which will not happen in a billion years), it will not be adopted by the whole market. So it is pointless even to suggest we can change how games are label in the world.
So the question is moot. The only function of such a discussion is to add some fun to the forum participants, particular those who want to pvp about what mmo is "about", or what is the "original intentions", or what does the words literally means. All good fun, but unimportant to most in the gaming world.
For us of course. Did you think either the OP or myself want Forbes or People magazine to use the acronym correctly?
And from some hints I've read about what mmorpg.com is about to do with their new website design, it may become a moot point anyway.
EDIT: See Bill's post: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/399807/page/5
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
We need new definition the least for communication. People here are so familiar with the games and there is no confusing of what people are talking about.
New definition is just a way to add some more forum pvp. Or may be we "need" it because we want to create more debate?
Nah. Filtering out what I consider to be pseudo-MMOs, as Bill suggests we'll soon be able to do, would satisfy me completely.
I also play a lot of games that are not MMOs by any definition. if I want to chat about those or want reviews and articles about them I wouldn't come here. But then again, maybe Madden, NHL and FIFA ARE MMOs. They certainly fit the all-inclusive expanded definitions some like to use.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Lol. I agree completely.
How about MMOWS? Why doesn't massively multiplayer online web surfing get any respect?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I consider MMO as a broad category for games with publisher provided multiplayer servers (as opposed to player operated like the FPS days). That seems to be how the industry, and certainly many players, are using it also.
I think the confusion is that many treat MMO as an abbreviation for MMORPG. To me, they are two different animals.
For me, MMORPGs are MMOs but not all MMOs are MMORPGs.
My gaming blog
M I O W
Massive Immersive Online World