If you broaden the definition of MMO to become too vague of a concept, then the genre dies any ways because it's existence no longer has meaning. You can not keep something alive by removing it's vital components.
Ohh, but it will die, soon enough you won't have to specify online or multiplayer at all anymore because every game will have these components, or at least the vast majority. Soon being 10-15 years btw, which is very fast for a language.
Right now it is in transition, meanings and importance is shifting and will find a new place or go extinct, that is why there is so much confusion atm.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Looking at when this site recently shared the top online games from E3 and they were all small number of player co-ops I'd say it was pretty good evidence of the genre's demise.
Looking for a rebirth now, Ashes of Creation's recent KSee success shows people are looking for new MMOs which are more in the "traditional" defintion.
The genre's slide back into its niche may cause marketing teams to stop using the term. So, in a strange way, the genre's decline back to its original humble beginnings may see the improper usage of the acronym die.
If you broaden the definition of MMO to become too vague of a concept, then the genre dies any ways because it's existence no longer has meaning. You can not keep something alive by removing it's vital components.
Ohh, but it will die, soon enough you won't have to specify online or multiplayer at all anymore because every game will have these components, or at least the vast majority. Soon being 10-15 years btw, which is very fast for a language.
Right now it is in transition, meanings and importance is shifting and will find a new place or go extinct, that is why there is so much confusion atm.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Looking at when this site recently shared the top online games from E3 and they were all small number of player co-ops I'd say it was pretty good evidence of the genre's demise.
Looking for a rebirth now, Ashes of Creation's recent KSee success shows people are looking for new MMOs which are more in the "traditional" defintion.
The genre's slide back into its niche may cause marketing teams to stop using the term. So, in a strange way, the genre's decline back to its original humble beginnings may see the improper usage of the acronym die.
The MMORPG genre is most definitley sliding back to its roots , and i agree , if it continues this movement the line will be drawn in the sand , again seperating it from the other Multi player gaming..
If you broaden the definition of MMO to become too vague of a concept, then the genre dies any ways because it's existence no longer has meaning. You can not keep something alive by removing it's vital components.
The "old" genre die. The newer, more vague, genre lives on. I suppose it goes back to whether people care about the old genre (apparently not), and that many (probably those in the gaming industry) care more about having a label than what it actually means.
That repeats the same contradiction of logic and retains the same flaw as before.
If you turn it into something generic then it loses value as a label and people will simply move on to something with more meaning to define their titles with.
All of this discussion over a simple definition only shows how heavily it is based on individual opinions of what, what as one view it.
As more and more games take different approaches to the same type of multiplayer experience, we're in for the "classic" and "new" approach to MMOs, that seeing how long and lasting the wars over things like what is/isn't Indie, what is/isn't AAA... will be a never-ending discussion.
Common problem. Word heard first with tons of unknown context. Word assigned to narrower (or broader) scope than intended. Enter ego, viola; useless verbiage.
Multiplayer covers everything needed for 90% of "MMOs" today.
But a whole generation heard it to mean "subscription-based online matchfinder."
Technically Ark would be a perfect fit for "MMO." 200 people per server theoretically, that's several times larger than average (pet shard).
Comments
The "old" genre die. The newer, more vague, genre lives on. I suppose it goes back to whether people care about the old genre (apparently not), and that many (probably those in the gaming industry) care more about having a label than what it actually means.
If you turn it into something generic then it loses value as a label and people will simply move on to something with more meaning to define their titles with.
As more and more games take different approaches to the same type of multiplayer experience, we're in for the "classic" and "new" approach to MMOs, that seeing how long and lasting the wars over things like what is/isn't Indie, what is/isn't AAA... will be a never-ending discussion.
Multiplayer covers everything needed for 90% of "MMOs" today.
But a whole generation heard it to mean "subscription-based online matchfinder."
Technically Ark would be a perfect fit for "MMO." 200 people per server theoretically, that's several times larger than average (pet shard).