The only opinions that matter, are those of corporations, or those people making money. The opinion of people spending or consuming a product, doesn't matter. Those who do matter have defined MMO as being Online, played by Multiple Players (2 or more), with a Massive Amount of Customers (typically Several 1.000's).
If someone were to make a Tic-Tac-Toe game (assuming 2 player), and put it online. Then they had servers supporting a thousand or more concurrent games. Then the news, bankers, investors, industry commentators, and everyone that matters (those making money) would be correct in calling Tic-Tac-Toe Online the newest MMO on the block.
A MOBA is a MMO, it may not be a RPG since it is derived from an RTS. But I can see how some players do see a Role per character (Class) to be played.
To those who have a problem with this site and its name and its coverage. I think they have stated that they are MMORPG now covering all MMOs.
Not sure I follow your logic too well.
By these standards you would be saying Battlefield titles are MMOs alongside many lobby shooters and other games that have anything to do with team-roles. If we include that tic-tac-toe commentary then almost any online game could be called an MMO...
Also as far as this site is concerned. Bill and others stated a good while back that they review and make articles about non-MMO titles, and that they are listed alongside/as MMOs because of the categories. So it's more attributable to not wanting to make extra categories for a subset of titles beyond MMOs that get articles/reviews.
Yes, Battlefield and other Lobby Games are MMOs. Without focus on "shooters" and "team-roles". If a game has a Massive Audience, and Audience is the only relevant thing. Next is that the game is Multiplayer (2 is all that is required). This simplistic or narrow thinking that Multiplayer can only apply to 100's or 1.000's of players in a single open world is based on a lack of understanding how the technology actually works. At any one time a player is on a server with Dozens of other players Not 100's. Games are Magic, they create the Illusion of Massive Multiplayer Open Worlds. When in fact they are coordinated and managed Instanced Play Grounds of a small number of players.
No one says, "Get me the newest most cutting edge piece of hardware." What they say is, "Get me the cheapest thing that can pull this off."
I'm not here to put words into Bill's or anyone else's mouth. I suspect they made a choice to expand coverage to MMO's in general, rather than rename or re-brand this site. Many if not all at this site say the day coming when the definition of MMO's would be expanding or at least more inclusive. Back to the question posed by this thread, Yes MOBA's and other Match based games are MMO'S. Simply because there are so many matches taking place in a Massive Multiplayer Online Community. The Massive reflects on the community rather than the hardware capacity of the server. That's why Minecraft is the MMO I play the most now a days.
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Yes, Battlefield and other Lobby Games are MMOs. Without focus on "shooters" and "team-roles". If a game has a Massive Audience, and Audience is the only relevant thing. Next is that the game is Multiplayer (2 is all that is required). This simplistic or narrow thinking that Multiplayer can only apply to 100's or 1.000's of players in a single open world is based on a lack of understanding how the technology actually works. At any one time a player is on a server with Dozens of other players Not 100's. Games are Magic, they create the Illusion of Massive Multiplayer Open Worlds. When in fact they are coordinated and managed Instanced Play Grounds of a small number of players.
No one says, "Get me the newest most cutting edge piece of hardware." What they say is, "Get me the cheapest thing that can pull this off."
I'm not here to put words into Bill's or anyone else's mouth. I suspect they made a choice to expand coverage to MMO's in general, rather than rename or re-brand this site. Many if not all at this site say the day coming when the definition of MMO's would be expanding or at least more inclusive. Back to the question posed by this thread, Yes MOBA's and other Match based games are MMO'S. Simply because there are so many matches taking place in a Massive Multiplayer Online Community. The Massive reflects on the community rather than the hardware capacity of the server. That's why Minecraft is the MMO I play the most now a days.
The first "M" stands for "Massively", not "Massive".
"Massively" is an adjective and modifies the word multiplayer.
Multiplayer means 2 or more people playing the game together. Not simultaneously, but together. It means they are within the same game space and can interact with one another.
So, for something to be massively multiplayer, it has to support lots of people within the same game space. To be considered "massively" bigger, you have to have a larger amount than average. Whats the average number of players for an online multiplayer game? 64 is pretty common with shooters.
This means that to be massively multiplayer, your game needs to support massively more people than 64 players within the same game environment. Richard Garriott and Raph Koster originally put this number at 250 people. It has nothing to do with hardware, it is all about concurrent users within the same virtual space.
As far as I'm aware, there are no lobby based shooters that support 250+ player matches. This is why lobby shooters have never been called MMOs.
So, assuming you have a good understanding of English comprehension, you can see why you are wrong.
If that's not enough, follow the links from my post on the first page of this thread to read Richard Garriott and Raph Koster - two of the pioneers of the MMO genre - tell you why your wrong.
If that's still not enough, go and read interviews from the game devs of the games which you think are MMOs - whenever asked, they specifically state that they are not MMOs.
For lobby-based shooters, I don't think even the media classify them as MMOs. Even this website's games list, which is terrible at classifying games, doesn't include your standard lobby based shooters.
The first "M" stands for "Massively", not "Massive".
lol .. so true but so trivial.
Do you actually believe most will care the difference between "massively multiplayer" versus "massive and multiplayer"?
Let's see .. the game list here classified Warframe as a "MMOTPS". Clearly Warframe is not "massively multiplayer" (though you can argue it is "massive *and* multiplayer"). So do you think you can get the world change just because you are not happy about how rigorous people are using language?
The first "M" stands for "Massively", not "Massive".
lol .. so true but so trivial.
Do you actually believe most will care the difference between "massively multiplayer" versus "massive and multiplayer"?
Yes. When is the last time you have actually heard one of your friends say LoL is an MMO? DotA? Hearthstone? Battlefield?
For me the answer is not a single time. I have never had to correct anyone in their usage of the term MMO outside these forums.
Even survival games aren't typically referred to as MMOs despite the fact that some of the larger servers would seem to qualify.
So most people do seem to care enough to use the word properly. Which in-fact what makes it the proper usage of the word. When you say "MMO" or "MMORPG" most gamers intrinsically know what you are referring to. And they don't think you are referring to a MOBA.
The first "M" stands for "Massively", not "Massive".
lol .. so true but so trivial.
Do you actually believe most will care the difference between "massively multiplayer" versus "massive and multiplayer"?
Let's see .. the game list here classified Warframe as a "MMOTPS". Clearly Warframe is not "massively multiplayer" (though you can argue it is "massive *and* multiplayer"). So do you think you can get the world change just because you are not happy about how rigorous people are using language?
You keep saying the gamelist here classify them as mmo. When the reality is the marketing team of those game are classifying them as mmo. And the staff of this site just don't care enough how rigorous the terminology is used.
I think the reality is some of the games fit in weird category of it's own. For example warframe, wot, kritika online. So instead of making a terminology fot them, they just try to adatp to another as close as possible.
For example I read the chinese classify kritika online as morpg. But the english speaking people might get confuse what morpg are.
And warframe i read is kind of like a mission base fps game, mostly dungeoning can be soloed or group with some pvp. With some progression.
The first "M" stands for "Massively", not "Massive".
lol .. so true but so trivial.
Do you actually believe most will care the difference between "massively multiplayer" versus "massive and multiplayer"?
Let's see .. the game list here classified Warframe as a "MMOTPS". Clearly Warframe is not "massively multiplayer" (though you can argue it is "massive *and* multiplayer"). So do you think you can get the world change just because you are not happy about how rigorous people are using language?
I don't know how many care. But there are obviously people care else we won't have this discussion. And you can google "world of tank mmo", "warframe mmo" there are similar discussion.
And your comment about do you think you can get the world change just because you are unhappy about how rigorous people are using language... I think it work both ways, sure there are people labeling moba as mmo, but I sure won't agree because of a tiny amount of people say so.
Do you actually believe most will care the difference between "massively multiplayer" versus "massive and multiplayer"?
You keep saying the gamelist here classify them as mmo. When the reality is the marketing team of those game are classifying them as mmo. And the staff of this site just don't care enough how rigorous the terminology is used.
Sure. Pretty much make my point that they do not " care the difference between "massively multiplayer" versus "massive and multiplayer".
And let me remind you that a site with MMO in its title does not care enough. Now how do you think an average gamer will feel?
I don't know how many care. But there are obviously people care else we won't have this discussion. And you can google "world of tank mmo", "warframe mmo" there are similar discussion.
And your comment about do you think you can get the world change just because you are unhappy about how rigorous people are using language... I think it work both ways, sure there are people labeling moba as mmo, but I sure won't agree because of a tiny amount of people say so.
Obvious some do. In fact, i won't be having fun here if no one does. But i will also say that few (in the larger world) do.
In fact, for years, people can't change even the game list on this site. That tells you something fun about the state of the MMO "community", or the lack of.
Do you actually believe most will care the difference between "massively multiplayer" versus "massive and multiplayer"?
You keep saying the gamelist here classify them as mmo. When the reality is the marketing team of those game are classifying them as mmo. And the staff of this site just don't care enough how rigorous the terminology is used.
Sure. Pretty much make my point that they do not " care the difference between "massively multiplayer" versus "massive and multiplayer".
And let me remind you that a site with MMO in its title does not care enough. Now how do you think an average gamer will feel?
So you are saying people don't care yet you keep bring up how this is such a hot topic people keep discussing it.
But just to clarify I don't think mmorpg.com have any authority to classify games too. At least much less than the creator of games. So if the creator of the game wants to label and market their game as mmo, I think this site should classify them that way too.
Do you actually believe most will care the difference between "massively multiplayer" versus "massive and multiplayer"?
You keep saying the gamelist here classify them as mmo. When the reality is the marketing team of those game are classifying them as mmo. And the staff of this site just don't care enough how rigorous the terminology is used.
Sure. Pretty much make my point that they do not " care the difference between "massively multiplayer" versus "massive and multiplayer".
And let me remind you that a site with MMO in its title does not care enough. Now how do you think an average gamer will feel?
There's all kinds of caring. From caring so much you're willing to put your life on the line for it all the way down to just shaking your head and chuckling at crusaders who want to change the name of the color white to black and thinks that if he can find enough examples of other ignoramuses who call white black, he has proven something.
"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
Do you actually believe most will care the difference between "massively multiplayer" versus "massive and multiplayer"?
You keep saying the gamelist here classify them as mmo. When the reality is the marketing team of those game are classifying them as mmo. And the staff of this site just don't care enough how rigorous the terminology is used.
Sure. Pretty much make my point that they do not " care the difference between "massively multiplayer" versus "massive and multiplayer".
And let me remind you that a site with MMO in its title does not care enough. Now how do you think an average gamer will feel?
So you are saying people don't care yet you keep bring up how this is such a hot topic people keep discussing it.
But just to clarify I don't think mmorpg.com have any authority to classify games too. At least much less than the creator of games. So if the creator of the game wants to label and market their game as mmo, I think this site should classify them that way too.
If not MMORPG.com them whom? Because calling an MOBA massive, in any definition of the word, is beyond ignorant, it is asinine.
It's a marketing tool more so than anything. If you classify your game as MMO it will be put on a lot more sites and discussed by more people. essentially false advertisement. It should come to a stop, like everything else false about the internet.
However, having said all of that, this is a dangerous path to walk. While we sit here debating a term that has a definite meaning, it is utterly idiotic to try and change the definition of this word (or any other for that matter) to fit in with a hobby. There are others that feel like I do and believe that there needs to be a modicum of accountability on the internet. What these types of discussions do is open the door for Internet policing. And the only way to police the internet is to pay people to do it. How do we afford to pay these people? Well, we tax the internet, charge people to send E-mail, etc.
While this is just a time wasting discussion for us, someone will use it as evidence that these sort of things need to start happening.
Should discussions like this happen? Absolutely, should they come to an agreed upon solution? definitely, because if we do not police ourselves, someone else will do it for us.
So who then should be the recognized authority on naming conventions for internet games? That is the question that needs an answer before we can put a proper title to games. The rest is just the educated trying to convince the ignorant to read a damn book now and then. Pointless in the extreme.
imo.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
So who then should be the recognized authority on naming conventions for internet games? That is the question that needs an answer before we can put a proper title to games. The rest is just the educated trying to convince the ignorant to read a damn book now and then. Pointless in the extreme.
This is a very good question: who should be the authority?
We already have the devs themselves, who generally get it right. We have advertising standards that are meant to ensure marketing material is correct, but this is reactionary - you need to be reported. We also have various associations that enforce their own rules.
But, there is nobody to actually set the original definitions, beyond simple English comprehension (which, in the case of MMOs, has been shown to not work as a lot of people's English comprehension sucks)
Perhaps the games industry could come together to form a similar organisation to the W3C (the people who define web standards). It would still be no guarantee of correct usage across the web, for example, even though the W3C sets out very clear rules for how code should work, each browser has interpreted those rules differently or deliberately breaks them. But, at least there is a standard to refer to so you can at least say "that is right" or "that is wrong".
Would certainly be nice if there was a recognised authority who just came out and said "MMO = 500+ users concurrently connected to the same virtual world", or "RPG = a game where a user can define the role their character fulfils, either through class or skill selection, and then has an opportunity to express that role through game mechanics" (I find RPG hard to define).
So who then should be the recognized authority on naming conventions for internet games? That is the question that needs an answer before we can put a proper title to games. The rest is just the educated trying to convince the ignorant to read a damn book now and then. Pointless in the extreme.
This is a very good question: who should be the authority?
We already have the devs themselves, who generally get it right. We have advertising standards that are meant to ensure marketing material is correct, but this is reactionary - you need to be reported. We also have various associations that enforce their own rules.
But, there is nobody to actually set the original definitions, beyond simple English comprehension (which, in the case of MMOs, has been shown to not work as a lot of people's English comprehension sucks)
Perhaps the games industry could come together to form a similar organisation to the W3C (the people who define web standards). It would still be no guarantee of correct usage across the web, for example, even though the W3C sets out very clear rules for how code should work, each browser has interpreted those rules differently or deliberately breaks them. But, at least there is a standard to refer to so you can at least say "that is right" or "that is wrong".
Would certainly be nice if there was a recognised authority who just came out and said "MMO = 500+ users concurrently connected to the same virtual world", or "RPG = a game where a user can define the role their character fulfils, either through class or skill selection, and then has an opportunity to express that role through game mechanics" (I find RPG hard to define).
Pretty much nailed it on semantics. Still the conversation remains pointless and mundane.
Also... Why question whether an acronym fits into an initialism? I thought they pretty much defined themselves Multiplayer Online Battle Arena, Massively Multiplayer Online. Need there be a discussion when the question answers itself?
RPG, easy to define. Role Playing Game. A game in which you play the role of a character. Doesn't necessarily have to be your character, or progressing a character. Even The Legend of Zelda was an RPG, was even written on the box.
Edit: Not attacking either of you (cameltosis and Hatefull) just quoting for context.
This is a very good question: who should be the authority?
Authority on the internet? ha ha ha ha ha ha .....
May be you should try to proclaim that you are .. and see if you can change the label back to its "proper" definition.
So when does Checkers MMORPG close beta start? I want to face off against all those enemy tell one of us just gives up and ask Shouldn't this be a MOBA instead?
So when does Checkers MMORPG close beta start? I want to face off against all those enemy tell one of us just gives up and ask Shouldn't this be a MOBA instead?
Comments
No one says, "Get me the newest most cutting edge piece of hardware." What they say is, "Get me the cheapest thing that can pull this off."
I'm not here to put words into Bill's or anyone else's mouth. I suspect they made a choice to expand coverage to MMO's in general, rather than rename or re-brand this site. Many if not all at this site say the day coming when the definition of MMO's would be expanding or at least more inclusive. Back to the question posed by this thread, Yes MOBA's and other Match based games are MMO'S. Simply because there are so many matches taking place in a Massive Multiplayer Online Community. The Massive reflects on the community rather than the hardware capacity of the server. That's why Minecraft is the MMO I play the most now a days.
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
"Massively" is an adjective and modifies the word multiplayer.
Multiplayer means 2 or more people playing the game together. Not simultaneously, but together. It means they are within the same game space and can interact with one another.
So, for something to be massively multiplayer, it has to support lots of people within the same game space. To be considered "massively" bigger, you have to have a larger amount than average. Whats the average number of players for an online multiplayer game? 64 is pretty common with shooters.
This means that to be massively multiplayer, your game needs to support massively more people than 64 players within the same game environment. Richard Garriott and Raph Koster originally put this number at 250 people. It has nothing to do with hardware, it is all about concurrent users within the same virtual space.
As far as I'm aware, there are no lobby based shooters that support 250+ player matches. This is why lobby shooters have never been called MMOs.
So, assuming you have a good understanding of English comprehension, you can see why you are wrong.
If that's not enough, follow the links from my post on the first page of this thread to read Richard Garriott and Raph Koster - two of the pioneers of the MMO genre - tell you why your wrong.
If that's still not enough, go and read interviews from the game devs of the games which you think are MMOs - whenever asked, they specifically state that they are not MMOs.
For lobby-based shooters, I don't think even the media classify them as MMOs. Even this website's games list, which is terrible at classifying games, doesn't include your standard lobby based shooters.
Of course I am going to enjoy the banter here. Otherwise, why would i ever be here?
Do you actually believe most will care the difference between "massively multiplayer" versus "massive and multiplayer"?
Let's see .. the game list here classified Warframe as a "MMOTPS". Clearly Warframe is not "massively multiplayer" (though you can argue it is "massive *and* multiplayer"). So do you think you can get the world change just because you are not happy about how rigorous people are using language?
For me the answer is not a single time. I have never had to correct anyone in their usage of the term MMO outside these forums.
Even survival games aren't typically referred to as MMOs despite the fact that some of the larger servers would seem to qualify.
So most people do seem to care enough to use the word properly. Which in-fact what makes it the proper usage of the word. When you say "MMO" or "MMORPG" most gamers intrinsically know what you are referring to. And they don't think you are referring to a MOBA.
MMORPG = WoW, ArcheAge, LOTRO etc.
It does not mean Dungeon Siege or Diablo.
MMOFPS = Planetside, WW2 Online etc.
It does not mean Halo or Battlefield.
MMORTS = Shattered Galaxies, Game of War etc.
It does not mean Age of Empires II or Starcraft.
MOBA =/= MMO. Notice the single M in MOBA. That's because it was never intended to be considered part of the MMO genre.
I think the reality is some of the games fit in weird category of it's own. For example warframe, wot, kritika online. So instead of making a terminology fot them, they just try to adatp to another as close as possible.
For example I read the chinese classify kritika online as morpg. But the english speaking people might get confuse what morpg are.
And warframe i read is kind of like a mission base fps game, mostly dungeoning can be soloed or group with some pvp. With some progression.
And your comment about do you think you can get the world change just because you are unhappy about how rigorous people are using language... I think it work both ways, sure there are people labeling moba as mmo, but I sure won't agree because of a tiny amount of people say so.
Sure. Pretty much make my point that they do not " care the difference between "massively multiplayer" versus "massive and multiplayer". And let me remind you that a site with MMO in its title does not care enough. Now how do you think an average gamer will feel?
But just to clarify I don't think mmorpg.com have any authority to classify games too. At least much less than the creator of games. So if the creator of the game wants to label and market their game as mmo, I think this site should classify them that way too.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
It's a marketing tool more so than anything. If you classify your game as MMO it will be put on a lot more sites and discussed by more people. essentially false advertisement. It should come to a stop, like everything else false about the internet.
However, having said all of that, this is a dangerous path to walk. While we sit here debating a term that has a definite meaning, it is utterly idiotic to try and change the definition of this word (or any other for that matter) to fit in with a hobby. There are others that feel like I do and believe that there needs to be a modicum of accountability on the internet. What these types of discussions do is open the door for Internet policing. And the only way to police the internet is to pay people to do it. How do we afford to pay these people? Well, we tax the internet, charge people to send E-mail, etc.
While this is just a time wasting discussion for us, someone will use it as evidence that these sort of things need to start happening.
Should discussions like this happen? Absolutely, should they come to an agreed upon solution? definitely, because if we do not police ourselves, someone else will do it for us.
So who then should be the recognized authority on naming conventions for internet games? That is the question that needs an answer before we can put a proper title to games. The rest is just the educated trying to convince the ignorant to read a damn book now and then. Pointless in the extreme.
imo.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
We already have the devs themselves, who generally get it right. We have advertising standards that are meant to ensure marketing material is correct, but this is reactionary - you need to be reported. We also have various associations that enforce their own rules.
But, there is nobody to actually set the original definitions, beyond simple English comprehension (which, in the case of MMOs, has been shown to not work as a lot of people's English comprehension sucks)
Perhaps the games industry could come together to form a similar organisation to the W3C (the people who define web standards). It would still be no guarantee of correct usage across the web, for example, even though the W3C sets out very clear rules for how code should work, each browser has interpreted those rules differently or deliberately breaks them. But, at least there is a standard to refer to so you can at least say "that is right" or "that is wrong".
Would certainly be nice if there was a recognised authority who just came out and said "MMO = 500+ users concurrently connected to the same virtual world", or "RPG = a game where a user can define the role their character fulfils, either through class or skill selection, and then has an opportunity to express that role through game mechanics" (I find RPG hard to define).
Also... Why question whether an acronym fits into an initialism? I thought they pretty much defined themselves Multiplayer Online Battle Arena, Massively Multiplayer Online. Need there be a discussion when the question answers itself?
RPG, easy to define. Role Playing Game. A game in which you play the role of a character. Doesn't necessarily have to be your character, or progressing a character. Even The Legend of Zelda was an RPG, was even written on the box.
Edit: Not attacking either of you (cameltosis and Hatefull) just quoting for context.
What do you suppose the forum participants should talk about? New MMOs?
https://skillgamesboard.com/play-checkers-online.aspx
If you ask, i bet this site will classify it as a "strategy MMO".