This seems to be a question that no one else ever asks. The term "Massively Multiplayer" seems to cover a very broad terrain these days, especially amongst game designers. Some people consider an MMO to be a game that involves up to 32 players. Some others say 64 or 128. Personally, I think a true MMO is unlimited in the number of players that can participate simultaneously. But what about the rest of you? How many gamers does it take to screw in an MMO? Here's two games that come to mind when most people hear the abbreviation in question: Battlefield 1942 and Everquest. I've never played Everquest so I'm not sure if there's actually a player cap, but to my knowledge there's an infinite number of players for it. The box for Battlefield 1942 claims the max players is 32, although I've seen many servers (like ihugbf42 and numerous others) host 48 to 64 players. At any rate, I've heard a lot of people refer to BF42 as an MMO as well. Obviously, both of these games can't be MMO's... otherwise there's no definition of what an MMO can be. So what makes an MMO an MMO? My opinion? A true MMO should have an unlimited number of players. Let me know what you think. - Matt Rock

Quote:

Original post by Maximus_PT1 A true MMO should have an unlimited number of players. Let me know what you think.

By this, do you mean that the software can theoretically have an unlimited number of people on a machine with unlimited memory, etc, or do you mean one who is running on hardware which can actually handle an unlimited number of people? If you mean the former, most (all?) MMOs are like that. If you mean the latter... you are fantasizing. No MMO could do that.

A lot of times people think of an MMO as meaning there is no theoretical maximum to the number of players - that is, the software can scale up to many, many players. Secondly, and what probably sets things more apart from multiplayer games that support 32, 64, etc players, is that an MMO is usually expected to have a 'persistent world' that either lasts permanently, or the game 'starts over' after a long period of time (a week would probably be considered persistent, a few hours would not)

It's defined however you like it. There's no official definition, so your guess is as good as anyone's.

Personally, I'd say it has to feature a persistent world is the main thing. And it shouldn't have any artificial fixed limits on the number of players online, I guess...

I second Spoonbender's "it's what you want it to be" and "persistent world" approaches, but even the second one gets weakened by the fact that a lot of MMOs now feature instanced areas. In Guild Wars (I haven't played it, so correct me if I'm wrong), the whole game appears to be a graphical frontend for instanced matches, yet it is considered MMO. Granted, characters still are persistent.

Classification by the number of players and the number of available servers seems to be another criterion, but there's no official standard on the threshhold when a game becomes "massive".

The difference is often subjective, but usually covers one or more of the following (note, the list is not exhaustive, just what in my mind is a consideration):

1) Persistence of world state, characters, or other game data besides something like a scoreboard.
2) No arbitrary "fixed" limit on the number of players per "server/shard", or at least it is presented that way to the players.
3) The game is presented as an exclusive "managed service", sometimes for pay.
4) The game is multiplayer-only, and has no single-player element to it at all.

A contrast from my experience is two games, one Neverwinter Nights, a Single / Multiplayer game, and DarkSpace, a "Massively" Multiplayer game. In truth, both games have one or more of those characteristics, but the combination and specifics in how each fits that list gives a hint as to how well each fits in its respective category.

Darkspace is a space combat simulation, like EvE, with both capped population, non-persistent world state servers, and a persistent "multiverse" server which has no "cap". Player information is persistent across both types of servers (ie, ships, parts, stats, etc). It is a managed, subscription-based pay service, and is not played as a standalone game.

Neverwinter Nights is a real-time RPG that can run in single-player, or on a server with a limited number of other players. World state in multiplayer can be persistent, though it is optional. It is not presented as a "managed service", though some of the third-party persistent world servers could operate as one.

Rather than any statistic involving the maximum number of players, I'd be more inclined to base any numerical clasification on the minimum number of concurrent players online at any one time.

There really isn't any official definition though, and I'd argue against the persistence argument even though it's something many people tend to consider (if I had 10,000 concurrent players in a non-persistent game would it not be a Massively Multiplayer Online game?).

I wouldn't call BF 1942 an MMO, it fits just fine into the FPS category, and doesn't do really do much beyond what Quake could do years ago in terms of players in a game (I seem to remember having at least 32 players in network games at school).

I agree with Kazgaroth in regards to BF42 not being an MMO. I've had arguements supporting that claim with BF42 players... constantly.

But I'm still curious as to why there's no real definition of what constitutes an MMO. From what I'm reading, an MMO is defined as "a persistant virtual world wherein an unlimited number of players can interact." But this definition simply doesn't some it up for some people. From a designer's perspective, that's the terminolgy I'd use to describe it. But from a gamer's perspective, based on what I've heard from numerous people in numerous games, the topic is one that doesn't seem to have an actual definition. Why not?

Is there a real-world scenario where defining the phrase "MMO" makes a difference? I think so. Without a proper definition there could be a sense of false advertising in some games. While some of us would refuse to refer to a game like BF42, or similar games with 64 players or less, as an MMO title, gamers apparently think otherwise. The problem would arises when a developer advertises a game as an MMO, but the multiplayer functionality doesn't fit in with what everyone would constitute as an MMO... I might not be getting my point across but if you understand what I'm getting at then you can see why I'm pushing for a serious definition. Or maybe I'm just looking into things too hard :P

- Matt

Quote:

Original post by Maximus_PT1 How many gamers does it take to screw in an MMO?

How rude! Sounds like its time for captain obvious to set things straight...

Here's how you define an MMOG: Massively Multiplayer Online Game. There.

*Dances off into the sunset*

I mean.... Seriously....?! The question should really be: How many players is Massively Multiplayer? I'll give you a clue. It's not two.

I now predict someone will try to quantify massive in terms of a pile of turnips.

Quote:

Original post by DogCity I now predict someone will try to quantify massive in terms of a pile of turnips.

And why not? It's what I've heard called the heap problem. How many grains of sand in a heap? Does one player count as MMO? Two? Three? How high do I have to count? The problem is that there is no proverbial "straw that breaks the camel's back".

I'd say that a "massively multiplayer" game has at least one order of magnitude more players than a regular multiplayer version. What's an order of magnitude? Could be twice, could be three times, could be ten times. There is a measure of subjectivity. How many in a regular version? Depends on the genre. For instance, a two or four player tennis game would be multiplayer, but I'd consider a dozen player tennis game "massively" multiplayer (that's a "massive" number of tennis players in one game).

Between hardware, game mechanics, and content creation, I think "unlimited players" is an unreasonable requirement. I'd also be suspicious of any definition that wouldn't call a game with 100,000 players and a 1,000,000 player cap "massively multiplayer".

It becomes "online" if it's over a network (although that's really the only practical way to get that many players together).

As for persistence, I'd put that in with the "RPG" part of "MMORPG". I think an MMOFPS or MMORTS could exist without persistence.