All the "data" is based on estimates, extrapolations and predictions.
False. They do get data directly from developers, publishers, transaction services and retailers. This has been explained plenty of times. They work with EA, Pro7Sat1, Wargaming, Activision, and plenty of other companies that share data with them.
Just because devs aren't sharing their data with you doesn't mean they aren't discussing it elsewhere.
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
Doesn't really matter. If in ten years time 'Mmo's' include all online games, so be it. It's the way things change. Society uses new words all the time that are then included in dictionaries. Why does it matter so much?
It's just an acronym, it does not define what you enjoy doing/playing.
It matters for those who are here to discuss things, since it spoils providing examples. Its annoying to dig through all irrelevant examples, bringed in on basis that "some ad-person calls this game MMO". If we start using term "MMO" for non-MMOs, this means we need new term for actual MMOs and its too time-consuming to find a word which all MMO players would agree on. Feeding ppl, using term in wrong way, with crap seems much more effective solution.
The industry already uses the term MMO for games like LoL. It is just a convenient label to me. I will use it as such.
Arguing is not going to change how others are using it. You already said it "find a word which all MMO players would agree on" because they can''t even agree on what the word refers to now.
You are better off trying to find a new term (virtual world games?) and make it stick.
When you look at those kinds of figures, and you take into account just how many F2P games there are, it kind of looks like F2P games don't make that much money, either that or there are quite a few F2P games in 'negative equity' .. which i guess is entirely possible. I guess its also another argument why so many upcoming games have decided on the P2P subscription model, perhaps they don't have that much faith in F2P either.
Originally posted by Phry When you look at those kinds of figures, and you take into account just how many F2P games there are, it kind of looks like F2P games don't make that much money, either that or there are quite a few F2P games in 'negative equity' .. which i guess is entirely possible. I guess its also another argument why so many upcoming games have decided on the P2P subscription model, perhaps they don't have that much faith in F2P either.
What other AAA game is going sub-only except ESO?
Even EQN is going to be f2p, and also Blizz's TCG game.
Originally posted by Phry When you look at those kinds of figures, and you take into account just how many F2P games there are, it kind of looks like F2P games don't make that much money, either that or there are quite a few F2P games in 'negative equity' .. which i guess is entirely possible. I guess its also another argument why so many upcoming games have decided on the P2P subscription model, perhaps they don't have that much faith in F2P either.
What other AAA game is going sub-only except ESO?
Even EQN is going to be f2p, and also Blizz's TCG game.
i was under the impression that Wildstar is also going to be P2P, along with ESO, as for an online trading card game, not sure how thats relevant?
Originally posted by SpottyGekko Originally posted by lizardbonesOriginally posted by FinalFikus If 48 million people play f2p, and let's say 10% of them pay an average of 26 dollars a month, where does the 2.5 billion number come from? Or what's 2.5 billion divided by the total f2p audience which this article says 48 million or so? I still don't see how they arrived at these numbers. Any math wizards out there know how they do this?
If you're going to assume numbers that don't add up, how can anyone possibly reconcile your numbers with theirs? Of course you can't see how they did this. They have access to information that you don't have, and you don't believe what they are saying, so nothing you imagine would add up to what they are saying. ** Audience is 46.8M people. Assume 10% are paying $26 a month. That means each month they are collecting $119,600,000. That brings the total per year to $1.4B. If we assume between 15% and 20% of people are actually paying instead of 10%, then we arrive at $2.5B. You need some justification for your 10% assumption to say they are flubbing their numbers. The final note here is that the projection is for 2013, which isn't over yet. They are assuming some sort of trend in the number of players. The dollars paid per playing player has remained constant, so they are assuming either the number of players will remain constant 'til year's end, or they are assuming that the number of players will continue to rise 'til year's end. Since we don't have all the information, it's hard to say which assumption they are using. All the "data" is based on estimates, extrapolations and predictions. Unless SuperData Research is heavily into industrial espionage, they don't really have any hard numbers to report, seeing as game companies are notoriously bad at reporting actual game profits.
Anyone that has any experience of analysing corporate earnings reports knows that it is something of a "black art". There are many ways of presenting numbers, and many ways to manipulate or "spin" that representation. So here we have company (SuperData) that is most likely applying "spin" to their predictions, predictions that themselves are based on data that is often presented in the most obscure way possible. The outcome can be pretty much whatever you want it to be
Until the likes of John Smedley or Bobby Kotick publicly praise the quality of SuperData's analysis, I'll simply disregard their "predictions". As far as I can see, all their efforts are aimed at selling their own products. They bigger they can make the numbers, the better the chances that someone will buy their "market analysis".
I'm in no way convinced that the payment model for games played via smartphone apps is remotely relevant to the kind of MMO's that I play. It's not the same product, it's not aimed at the same audience, so why would you try to market and price it in the same way ?
On their About page, they list Activision Blizzard, EA, Ubisoft, Zynga and Perfect World as companies they work with. Microsoft and Google in particular are not likely to allow Super Data Research to claim they work with them, if they don't. Not for over three years.
Of course, they are making some sort of assumptions, but not in their historical data. If they are publishing that the average paying player pays $26, it seems likely that they have something to back it up, since the people they will be selling the more detailed information to will request it. If they are publishing that there are 46.x million people playing F2P games per month, then it seems likely that they have information that backs up that historical figure, since people buying the information will request it. If the information they publish publicly differs from the information they sell privately, then it damages their reputation with the very people they are trying to sell their information to, or work with.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Phry When you look at those kinds of figures, and you take into account just how many F2P games there are, it kind of looks like F2P games don't make that much money, either that or there are quite a few F2P games in 'negative equity' .. which i guess is entirely possible. I guess its also another argument why so many upcoming games have decided on the P2P subscription model, perhaps they don't have that much faith in F2P either.
What other AAA game is going sub-only except ESO?
Even EQN is going to be f2p, and also Blizz's TCG game.
i was under the impression that Wildstar is also going to be P2P, along with ESO, as for an online trading card game, not sure how thats relevant?
To be fair, let's count all the sub-only games. And let's count all the f2p games. And then see which number is larger.
According to Newzoo, the global MMO market will be worth $14.9B in 2013 !
Soooo... if SuperData is claiming that the F2P gaming industry in total will be worth $2.5B (projected) in 2013, does that mean the subscription MMO market will be worth $12.5B in 2013 ?
Using Blizzard is actually a good argument against subscriptions being dominant because their sub revenues are continuing to decline while their non sub revenues like Skylanders and D3 continue to soar. Skylanders was only projected to bring in about $500M overall, but has grossed over $1Bn. That's pretty amazing. It also shows how complex revenue models and strategies are. There is no "p2p" and "f2p". It is a complicated mix to try and squeeze as much money out of us as possible.
And the next Blizz game, Hearthstone, is going to be F2P. There is even rumour that WOW will have a cash shop, and if that is the case, f2P is not far away.
It is quote clear that sub-only is losing ground, but what is replacing it, is a mixture of things, as you said.
It's not an argument that subscriptions are dominant. It's an argument that 2.5 billion a year from F2P is does not in any way signify anything other than it's a surprisingly small number. If you're digging for a deeper meaning you're wasting your time.
If you remove wow from the sub numbers what do you think they look like ?
Originally posted by FinalFikus If 48 million people play f2p, and let's say 10% of them pay an average of 26 dollars a month, where does the 2.5 billion number come from?
Or what's 2.5 billion divided by the total f2p audience which this article says 48 million or so? I still don't see how they arrived at these numbers. Any math wizards out there know how they do this?
If you're going to assume numbers that don't add up, how can anyone possibly reconcile your numbers with theirs?
Of course you can't see how they did this. They have access to information that you don't have, and you don't believe what they are saying, so nothing you imagine would add up to what they are saying.
**
Audience is 46.8M people. Assume 10% are paying $26 a month. That means each month they are collecting $119,600,000. That brings the total per year to $1.4B. If we assume between 15% and 20% of people are actually paying instead of 10%, then we arrive at $2.5B. You need some justification for your 10% assumption to say they are flubbing their numbers.
The final note here is that the projection is for 2013, which isn't over yet. They are assuming some sort of trend in the number of players. The dollars paid per playing player has remained constant, so they are assuming either the number of players will remain constant 'til year's end, or they are assuming that the number of players will continue to rise 'til year's end. Since we don't have all the information, it's hard to say which assumption they are using.
Right on. Was just looking for some math. Thank you sir.
Of coarse it will rise as p2p switch to free to play, and I'd bet a case of beer taxation will be the next trend once p2p has been surrendered completely.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
It's not an argument that subscriptions are dominant. It's an argument that 2.5 billion a year from F2P is does not in any way signify anything other than it's a surprisingly small number. If you're digging for a deeper meaning you're wasting your time.
If you remove wow from the sub numbers what do you think they look like ?
If you compare the top 5 p2p to the top 5 free2play what changes?
I wonder what B2P games with online play without extra cost are included. Games like GTA and COD, minecraft and madden?
I bet the 100 games on my phone are included though, and they're not even really multiplayer.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Right on. Was just looking for some math. Thank you sir.
Of coarse it will rise as p2p switch to free to play, and I'd bet a case of beer taxation will be the next trend once p2p has been surrendered completely.
It's hard to tax an international market. And doing it to microtrasactions would be a nightmare. 2.4 billion sounds like lots of money but it is coming from an international market that buys only a few dollars worth at a time ( mostly ) it would probably cost more to get it than it would be worth.
I think internet gambling showed the tax man what a waste of time it is to chase after that dollar. Servers can be put anywhere.
Right on. Was just looking for some math. Thank you sir.
Of coarse it will rise as p2p switch to free to play, and I'd bet a case of beer taxation will be the next trend once p2p has been surrendered completely.
It's hard to tax an international market. And doing it to microtrasactions would be a nightmare. 2.4 billion sounds like lots of money but it is coming from an international market that buys only a few dollars worth at a time ( mostly ) it would probably cost more to get it than it would be worth.
I think internet gambling showed the tax man what a waste of time it is to chase after that dollar. Servers can be put anywhere.
A case of beer then? It's a bet.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Right on. Was just looking for some math. Thank you sir.
Of coarse it will rise as p2p switch to free to play, and I'd bet a case of beer taxation will be the next trend once p2p has been surrendered completely.
It's hard to tax an international market. And doing it to microtrasactions would be a nightmare. 2.4 billion sounds like lots of money but it is coming from an international market that buys only a few dollars worth at a time ( mostly ) it would probably cost more to get it than it would be worth.
I think internet gambling showed the tax man what a waste of time it is to chase after that dollar. Servers can be put anywhere.
Right on. Was just looking for some math. Thank you sir.
Of coarse it will rise as p2p switch to free to play, and I'd bet a case of beer taxation will be the next trend once p2p has been surrendered completely.
It's hard to tax an international market. And doing it to microtrasactions would be a nightmare. 2.4 billion sounds like lots of money but it is coming from an international market that buys only a few dollars worth at a time ( mostly ) it would probably cost more to get it than it would be worth.
I think internet gambling showed the tax man what a waste of time it is to chase after that dollar. Servers can be put anywhere.
A case of beer then? It's a bet.
Not if you call that 2.5% swill you drink, beer.
If they can call LOL an mmo, I can call that beer!!
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
GTA5 reached a billion in revenue in 3 days. A bunch a world records too.
And with a virtual world with the game built around it, which as we all know from our experts, is a recipe for a tiny customer base that is undeserving of any funding what-so-ever. Unless you only want 5-10k players. Skyrim only confirms that no one wants the V. WOrld with a game.
I see other trends besides F2P, but that's me.
I wonder if the 46 million x-box live subscribers, half of which pay for gold membership, are ignored?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
It matters for those who are here to discuss things, since it spoils providing examples. Its annoying to dig through all irrelevant examples, bringed in on basis that "some ad-person calls this game MMO". If we start using term "MMO" for non-MMOs, this means we need new term for actual MMOs and its too time-consuming to find a word which all MMO players would agree on. Feeding ppl, using term in wrong way, with crap seems much more effective solution.
The industry already uses the term MMO for games like LoL. It is just a convenient label to me. I will use it as such.
Arguing is not going to change how others are using it. You already said it "find a word which all MMO players would agree on" because they can''t even agree on what the word refers to now.
You are better off trying to find a new term (virtual world games?) and make it stick.
Advertisement industry always uses some buzzwords irrespective of their actual meaning, and most of time these words doesn't stick. MMO players are already agreed on using MMO for MMO, good enough for me. For lol we have "online game". I dont see much misuse of MMO term in interviews/blogs with actual developers or gamers.
GTA5 reached a billion in revenue in 3 days. A bunch a world records too.
And with a virtual world with the game built around it, which as we all know from our experts, is a recipe for a tiny customer base when expanded to a massively multiplayer platform...
If you're going to be snarky about the stance of others, you might as well as least get it right.
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
It matters for those who are here to discuss things, since it spoils providing examples. Its annoying to dig through all irrelevant examples, bringed in on basis that "some ad-person calls this game MMO". If we start using term "MMO" for non-MMOs, this means we need new term for actual MMOs and its too time-consuming to find a word which all MMO players would agree on. Feeding ppl, using term in wrong way, with crap seems much more effective solution.
The industry already uses the term MMO for games like LoL. It is just a convenient label to me. I will use it as such.
Arguing is not going to change how others are using it. You already said it "find a word which all MMO players would agree on" because they can''t even agree on what the word refers to now.
You are better off trying to find a new term (virtual world games?) and make it stick.
Advertisement industry always uses some buzzwords irrespective of their actual meaning, and most of time these words doesn't stick. MMO players are already agreed on using MMO for MMO, good enough for me. For lol we have "online game". I dont see much misuse of MMO term in interviews/blogs with actual developers or gamers.
Industry analytics firm classify LoL as a MMO. Even this site has it under the "MMORPG" list. There are several OTHER MMORPG site put it under MMO.
And MMO players already "agreed"? Do you actually have evidence for that? A few people here saying so does not count.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Atis-nobOriginally posted by nariusseldonOriginally posted by Atis-nobIt matters for those who are here to discuss things, since it spoils providing examples. Its annoying to dig through all irrelevant examples, bringed in on basis that "some ad-person calls this game MMO". If we start using term "MMO" for non-MMOs, this means we need new term for actual MMOs and its too time-consuming to find a word which all MMO players would agree on. Feeding ppl, using term in wrong way, with crap seems much more effective solution.
The industry already uses the term MMO for games like LoL. It is just a convenient label to me. I will use it as such.Arguing is not going to change how others are using it. You already said it "find a word which all MMO players would agree on" because they can''t even agree on what the word refers to now.You are better off trying to find a new term (virtual world games?) and make it stick.Advertisement industry always uses some buzzwords irrespective of their actual meaning, and most of time these words doesn't stick. MMO players are already agreed on using MMO for MMO, good enough for me. For lol we have "online game". I dont see much misuse of MMO term in interviews/blogs with actual developers or gamers.Industry analytics firm classify LoL as a MMO. Even this site has it under the "MMORPG" list. There are several OTHER MMORPG site put it under MMO.
And MMO players already "agreed"? Do you actually have evidence for that? A few people here saying so does not count.
The Game List on this site is titled "MMORPG Gamelist - All MMO Games", which includes among others, Diablo III and League of Legends. On the internet, the landscape of general consensus we find a List of MMO Games, where MMORPGs are linked to as a separate category.
If there is a consensus, it's in the direction of including more games under the "MMO" title, with several different categories of MMOs, not just MMORPGs.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The Game List on this site is titled "MMORPG Gamelist - All MMO Games", which includes among others, Diablo III and League of Legends. On the internet, the landscape of general consensus we find a List of MMO Games, where MMORPGs are linked to as a separate category.
If there is a consensus, it's in the direction of including more games under the "MMO" title, with several different categories of MMOs, not just MMORPGs.
I think it is pretty clear that there is a trend broadening the use of the label "MMO". However, while i don't disagree MMORPG can be a sub-category, i don't see a lot of specific usage of that, in industry analytics, nor discussion sites.
For example, there is no break-out of a sub MMORPG category under MMO in most of these reports, nor even this site breaks it down further. So may be there are not enough people caring it.
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by lizardbones The Game List on this site is titled "MMORPG Gamelist - All MMO Games", which includes among others, Diablo III and League of Legends. On the internet, the landscape of general consensus we find a List of MMO Games, where MMORPGs are linked to as a separate category. If there is a consensus, it's in the direction of including more games under the "MMO" title, with several different categories of MMOs, not just MMORPGs.
I think it is pretty clear that there is a trend broadening the use of the label "MMO". However, while i don't disagree MMORPG can be a sub-category, i don't see a lot of specific usage of that, in industry analytics, nor discussion sites.
For example, there is no break-out of a sub MMORPG category under MMO in most of these reports, nor even this site breaks it down further. So may be there are not enough people caring it.
"MMORPG" has a definition, and it's a fairly stable one. In both common usage (WoW, Rift, TSW and EQ are referred to as an MMORPGs, while LoL, D3 and CoD multiplayer are not referred to as an MMORPGs), and in reference materials (MMORPG) the basic concept of MMORPG hasn't changed much for years.
MMORPGs in general may not have enough market presence to register in industry wide research as a separate "thing", but that doesn't mean "MMORPG" is an undefined quantity.
It may mean that MMORPGs aren't that relevant in a discussion about F2P though. Any effects of MMORPGs using a F2P business model will only be felt within the MMORPG genre, while the effects of other games, including mobile games that aren't MMORPGs at all using a F2P business model could push more MMORPGs to use a F2P business model.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Advertisement industry always uses some buzzwords irrespective of their actual meaning, and most of time these words doesn't stick. MMO players are already agreed on using MMO for MMO, good enough for me. For lol we have "online game". I dont see much misuse of MMO term in interviews/blogs with actual developers or gamers.
Industry analytics firm classify LoL as a MMO. Even this site has it under the "MMORPG" list. There are several OTHER MMORPG site put it under MMO.
And MMO players already "agreed"? Do you actually have evidence for that? A few people here saying so does not count.
Analytics will entitle their paper depending on customers. If customers don't see a difference between MMO and tetris, analitycs will short "MMO and rpg-style online games revenue report" to "MMO revenue report". Its not like they gonna discuss MMO features, they discuss specific game projects, comparing target audience, monetization model etc. but not genre, because it doesnt matter when it comes to money. Same goes for MMO sites. If ad they sell hits MMO and MOBA gamers they write for MMO and MOBA gamers.
Since we are not paid to discuss games, I dont see any reason why we should care about market value of MMOs more than game features. MMOs and non-MMOs can share same market but are different as games we discuss them as different games.
Gamers on any taken portal include MMOs in MMO-category, but it varies for other online games, therefore "MMO" if a common term for MMOs but not generally accepted for other games.
Comments
False. They do get data directly from developers, publishers, transaction services and retailers. This has been explained plenty of times. They work with EA, Pro7Sat1, Wargaming, Activision, and plenty of other companies that share data with them.
Just because devs aren't sharing their data with you doesn't mean they aren't discussing it elsewhere.
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
The industry already uses the term MMO for games like LoL. It is just a convenient label to me. I will use it as such.
Arguing is not going to change how others are using it. You already said it "find a word which all MMO players would agree on" because they can''t even agree on what the word refers to now.
You are better off trying to find a new term (virtual world games?) and make it stick.
What other AAA game is going sub-only except ESO?
Even EQN is going to be f2p, and also Blizz's TCG game.
i was under the impression that Wildstar is also going to be P2P, along with ESO, as for an online trading card game, not sure how thats relevant?
All the "data" is based on estimates, extrapolations and predictions. Unless SuperData Research is heavily into industrial espionage, they don't really have any hard numbers to report, seeing as game companies are notoriously bad at reporting actual game profits.
Anyone that has any experience of analysing corporate earnings reports knows that it is something of a "black art". There are many ways of presenting numbers, and many ways to manipulate or "spin" that representation. So here we have company (SuperData) that is most likely applying "spin" to their predictions, predictions that themselves are based on data that is often presented in the most obscure way possible. The outcome can be pretty much whatever you want it to be
Until the likes of John Smedley or Bobby Kotick publicly praise the quality of SuperData's analysis, I'll simply disregard their "predictions". As far as I can see, all their efforts are aimed at selling their own products. They bigger they can make the numbers, the better the chances that someone will buy their "market analysis".
I'm in no way convinced that the payment model for games played via smartphone apps is remotely relevant to the kind of MMO's that I play. It's not the same product, it's not aimed at the same audience, so why would you try to market and price it in the same way ?
On their About page, they list Activision Blizzard, EA, Ubisoft, Zynga and Perfect World as companies they work with. Microsoft and Google in particular are not likely to allow Super Data Research to claim they work with them, if they don't. Not for over three years.
Of course, they are making some sort of assumptions, but not in their historical data. If they are publishing that the average paying player pays $26, it seems likely that they have something to back it up, since the people they will be selling the more detailed information to will request it. If they are publishing that there are 46.x million people playing F2P games per month, then it seems likely that they have information that backs up that historical figure, since people buying the information will request it. If the information they publish publicly differs from the information they sell privately, then it damages their reputation with the very people they are trying to sell their information to, or work with.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
To be fair, let's count all the sub-only games. And let's count all the f2p games. And then see which number is larger.
Pffffttt... $2.5B ? That's peanuts !
According to Newzoo, the global MMO market will be worth $14.9B in 2013 !
Soooo... if SuperData is claiming that the F2P gaming industry in total will be worth $2.5B (projected) in 2013, does that mean the subscription MMO market will be worth $12.5B in 2013 ?
Damn these stupid predictions, eh ?
And the next Blizz game, Hearthstone, is going to be F2P. There is even rumour that WOW will have a cash shop, and if that is the case, f2P is not far away.
It is quote clear that sub-only is losing ground, but what is replacing it, is a mixture of things, as you said.
If you remove wow from the sub numbers what do you think they look like ?
Right on. Was just looking for some math. Thank you sir.
Of coarse it will rise as p2p switch to free to play, and I'd bet a case of beer taxation will be the next trend once p2p has been surrendered completely.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
If you compare the top 5 p2p to the top 5 free2play what changes?
I wonder what B2P games with online play without extra cost are included. Games like GTA and COD, minecraft and madden?
I bet the 100 games on my phone are included though, and they're not even really multiplayer.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
It's hard to tax an international market. And doing it to microtrasactions would be a nightmare. 2.4 billion sounds like lots of money but it is coming from an international market that buys only a few dollars worth at a time ( mostly ) it would probably cost more to get it than it would be worth.
I think internet gambling showed the tax man what a waste of time it is to chase after that dollar. Servers can be put anywhere.
A case of beer then? It's a bet.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Not if you call that 2.5% swill you drink, beer.
If they can call LOL an mmo, I can call that beer!!
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
GTA5 reached a billion in revenue in 3 days. A bunch a world records too.
And with a virtual world with the game built around it, which as we all know from our experts, is a recipe for a tiny customer base that is undeserving of any funding what-so-ever. Unless you only want 5-10k players. Skyrim only confirms that no one wants the V. WOrld with a game.
I see other trends besides F2P, but that's me.
I wonder if the 46 million x-box live subscribers, half of which pay for gold membership, are ignored?
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Advertisement industry always uses some buzzwords irrespective of their actual meaning, and most of time these words doesn't stick. MMO players are already agreed on using MMO for MMO, good enough for me. For lol we have "online game". I dont see much misuse of MMO term in interviews/blogs with actual developers or gamers.
If you're going to be snarky about the stance of others, you might as well as least get it right.
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
Industry analytics firm classify LoL as a MMO. Even this site has it under the "MMORPG" list. There are several OTHER MMORPG site put it under MMO.
And MMO players already "agreed"? Do you actually have evidence for that? A few people here saying so does not count.
Advertisement industry always uses some buzzwords irrespective of their actual meaning, and most of time these words doesn't stick. MMO players are already agreed on using MMO for MMO, good enough for me. For lol we have "online game". I dont see much misuse of MMO term in interviews/blogs with actual developers or gamers.
Industry analytics firm classify LoL as a MMO. Even this site has it under the "MMORPG" list. There are several OTHER MMORPG site put it under MMO.
And MMO players already "agreed"? Do you actually have evidence for that? A few people here saying so does not count.
The Game List on this site is titled "MMORPG Gamelist - All MMO Games", which includes among others, Diablo III and League of Legends. On the internet, the landscape of general consensus we find a List of MMO Games, where MMORPGs are linked to as a separate category.
If there is a consensus, it's in the direction of including more games under the "MMO" title, with several different categories of MMOs, not just MMORPGs.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I think it is pretty clear that there is a trend broadening the use of the label "MMO". However, while i don't disagree MMORPG can be a sub-category, i don't see a lot of specific usage of that, in industry analytics, nor discussion sites.
For example, there is no break-out of a sub MMORPG category under MMO in most of these reports, nor even this site breaks it down further. So may be there are not enough people caring it.
I hope you are not under the illusion that arguing on the internet is actually useful.
For example, there is no break-out of a sub MMORPG category under MMO in most of these reports, nor even this site breaks it down further. So may be there are not enough people caring it.
"MMORPG" has a definition, and it's a fairly stable one. In both common usage (WoW, Rift, TSW and EQ are referred to as an MMORPGs, while LoL, D3 and CoD multiplayer are not referred to as an MMORPGs), and in reference materials (MMORPG) the basic concept of MMORPG hasn't changed much for years.
MMORPGs in general may not have enough market presence to register in industry wide research as a separate "thing", but that doesn't mean "MMORPG" is an undefined quantity.
It may mean that MMORPGs aren't that relevant in a discussion about F2P though. Any effects of MMORPGs using a F2P business model will only be felt within the MMORPG genre, while the effects of other games, including mobile games that aren't MMORPGs at all using a F2P business model could push more MMORPGs to use a F2P business model.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Analytics will entitle their paper depending on customers. If customers don't see a difference between MMO and tetris, analitycs will short "MMO and rpg-style online games revenue report" to "MMO revenue report". Its not like they gonna discuss MMO features, they discuss specific game projects, comparing target audience, monetization model etc. but not genre, because it doesnt matter when it comes to money. Same goes for MMO sites. If ad they sell hits MMO and MOBA gamers they write for MMO and MOBA gamers.
Since we are not paid to discuss games, I dont see any reason why we should care about market value of MMOs more than game features. MMOs and non-MMOs can share same market but are different as games we discuss them as different games.
Gamers on any taken portal include MMOs in MMO-category, but it varies for other online games, therefore "MMO" if a common term for MMOs but not generally accepted for other games.