I think a big problem with the name "MMORPG" is that it describes a goal, not a genre. If I wanted to make a FPS, and Valve Software wanted to make a FPS, they'll both be the same genre. However, "MMORPG" describes a goal: 'massive' (whether you are defining 'massive' to mean content, world size, subscribers). Since it's describing a goal, not a genre, that means a game that wasn't an MMORPG early in it's life, can become an MMO later in it's life, just by increased player count or world expansions. With the exception of World of Warcraft and Lineage 2, no game hit 1 million subscribers within it's first year of release (at least, as of 2008).
This is why ORPG is so much a better term than MMORPG. World of Warcraft is a commercially successful ORPG. Success is also relative. If I made a game, and had 1,000 subscribers, I'd consider it successful for me as an individual.

It's a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. The massive refers to the number of players, not the amount of content.

They use massively multiplayer online role playing game because there are online role playing games that are not massive. NWN is a good example. I think it has a max of like 16 players per server.

A lot of people take it to also have the implication of a persistent world, though that isn't necessarily accurate by the acronym. There is definitely a difference in the number of people on an MMO and any other online game.

I think anyone still in the camp of "it can be done" are missing something simple. It's been alluded to already but I'll restate it again.

Writing a game that's server based multiplayer, even if it's persistent, just adds the MO part. To get that other M, the game needs to be, er, massive. That's it. How is one guy or even a small team going to make something that anyone would look at and say "wow, that's not just big, it's massive!". Answer: None, regardless of competence levels.

The fact that newbies think they can do it is laughable and only good for a fun poke. When good developers talk about doing one, they're just redefining the "M" bit to mean "minimal".

Bottom line: To make an online game that is truly massive, even if the code and assets just dropped into your lap one day, you'd still need to spend more money than you've ever earned to date in your life on servers, server staffing and customer support

I can't talk about the cost of customer support (althought i'd guess indies would offload all of the billing to a third party company taking a CUT and needing no advance and keep the release-time in game support/issues to themselves + selected player-GMs) but the services definately don't cost "more than you're ever earned to date in your life" unless you make miserable money.
Keep in mind what was true in 96 when EQ released isn't anymore, the cost of a server at equal power isn't what it was 15 years ago and you can get some really really slick servers for < 10K, and buy more as cash comes, same with hosting, just put your server in a datacenter (or hell, if you can't advance the cash for a server just rent a few nice ones). For info i just checked dell usa's website and went for a 25K budget (which is totally overkill) to give you an idea and ended up with a 256 gigabytes of ram server and 4X xeon E7520 (4 cores each, + HT = 8 threads X4 proc = 32 threads of parallel execution , add that each player should consume a very tiny fraction of a full time thread and you're already supporting a lot of people on this machine). Of course that's totally overkill and you'd do very fine with a 1K$ server when starting to see if this works out. Saying that server costs prevent indy MMOs makes no sense, when you're wondering about how you'll manage to host all of these people, it's already a success.

Are MMOs really out of reach for indy developers? I read these articles saying that if you don't have multi-millions that you shouldn't even try to develop an MMO. But on the other hand there are successful hobby developed MMOs like Runescape for instance.

Granted someone doesn't think they'll make WoW 2.0 I think an MMO is actually an achievable goal for a dedicated hobby developer.


What do you think?

Well, some of the developers in the virtual pets niche are indy developers - and aren't all owned by companies. Some have moved up though, and got bought out.

The niche is still very profitable - especially with the power of the internet. I know game owners generating $500 to $1k+/day off their virtual pet sites a day.

[quote name='Butabee' timestamp='1296380660' post='4766947']
But on the other hand there are successful hobby developed MMOs like Runescape for instance.

Runescape was developed in a different time when expectations were different.

Just like Tetris once took world by storm, it wouldn't go anywhere today, and would just be flooded among literally tens of thousands of more compelling and more polished games. MUDs were once big and by tacking a visual UI on one of them Ultima Online was born. Again, there are hundreds of UO-like online games out there today, running in Flash/browser[/quote]

That's so unbelievable. I haven't got time to read the whole thread or your post but I had to comment on those statements.

Tetris is a classic game (look up the definition of classic if you are not familiar with the term), and if it hadn't been invented, and were released today, it would be a unique game with great gameplay and replayability. With the right advertising it would be a very successful game considering the relatively little investment it would need to develop. Not all games need to have the latest in 3D rendering and illumination techniques to be successful... What you've said is tantamount to saying Chess, Go, Connect Four, Nought and Crosses, or Monopoly, aren't flashy enough to succeed in today's market of board games! They're no doubt some of the most played and best selling board-games in the world. And I bet a hell of a lot people sill play Tetris. I know I did recently. Damn sight more fun than most big titles today that's for sure... In fact I'm going to go play Tetris right now, because its such a great game.

And Runescape! It's the most popular F2P MMORPG in the world! Are you trolling?

Further, about "hundreds of UO-like games in Flash/browser". Again, completely untrue. Please name one, or even name any game, be it standalone/web-based/2-D/3-D, with the depth of gameplay and level of freedom that pre-trammel Ultima Online had. The only one that comes even close at the moment is Darkfall Online, but that's no where near as well made or as good a game as UO was imo.

Damn man, I get the feeling I've just been trolled. But whatever. Nerd rage over. Pfff.

Tetris is a CLASSIC game (look up the definition of classic if you are not familiar with the term), and if it hadn't been invented, and were released today, it would be a unique game with great gameplay and replayability. With the right advertising it would be a very successful game considering the relatively little investment it would need to develop. Not all games need to have the latest in 3D rendering and illumination techniques to be successful... What you've said is tantamount to saying Chess, Go, Connect Four, Nought and Crosses, or Monopoly, aren't flashy enough to succeed in today's market of board games. BOLLOCKS! They're no doubt some of the most played and best selling board-games in the world. And I bet a hell of a lot people STILL play Tetris. I know I did recently. Damn sight more fun than most big titles today that's for sure... In fact I'm going to go play Tetris right now, because its such a great game.

And Runescape! It's the MOST POPULAR F2P MMORPG in the world! What planet are you living on? Or are you trolling?

Further, about "hundreds of UO-like games in Flash/browser". Again TOTAL and utter BULLCRAP! I dare you to name ONE! Nono, "I double dare you ****** ******", name any game, be it standalone/web-based/2-D/3-D with the depth of gameplay and level of freedom that pre-trammel Ultima Online had. The only one that comes even close at the moment is Darkfall Online, but that's no where near as well made or as good a game as UO was imo.

Damn man, I get the feeling I've just been trolled. But whatever. Nerd rage over. Pfff.

ITT guy misunderstands point and proceeds to rage.

Tetris would do fine today, but it wouldn't be what it is now if it were released today vs almost 30 years ago. It's a pop culture icon thanks to when it was released. If it happened today it would just be another bejeweled or similar.

Runescape also probably wouldn't be where it is if it didn't fill a niche at the right time.

On UO similar games. There are a lot of them. Are they as good, popular, or as deep as UO? probably not, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Tetris would do fine today, but it wouldn't be what it is now if it were released today vs almost 30 years ago. It's a pop culture icon thanks to when it was released. If it happened today it would just be another bejeweled or similar.

Err, Bejewled is inspired by Tetris... If Tetris happened today there wouldn't have been a Bejeweled to compare it to... Anyway, the fact you know what Bejeweled is means its doing just fine.

Runescape also probably wouldn't be where it is if it didn't fill a niche at the right time.[/quote]

Oh and what about Runes of Magic? Or one of the countless other WoW clones that are very succesful on the F2P to play model?... Or the countless other non-WoW clone MMOs that are very succesfull? Please remember the thread isn't about "is becoming the most popular F2P MMO out of reach of hobby developers", its about whether or not creating a successful MMO is out of reach of hobby developers. Pointing at Runescape and saying "its only the most popular one because it was one of the first and people didn't expect much back then" is unprovable, and completely pointless. Further, it people didn't expect much back then, then obviously they still don't, because its still the most popular F2P MMO in the world.

On UO similar games. There are a lot of them. Are they as good, popular, or as deep as UO? probably not, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.[/quote]

Go on, please name one, and remember he said web-based..

Err, Bejewled is inspired by Tetris... If Tetris happened today there wouldn't have been a Bejeweled to compare it to... Anyway, the fact you know what Bejeweled is means its doing just fine.

you completely missed the point.

Tetris would do fine today, but it wouldn't be what it is now if it were released today[/quote]

Tetris is a pop culture icon. Had it not been released 30 years ago, it would still be a good game and it would still be fun. It probably would not be a pop culture icon, which puts its overall success significantly lower than the success it has garnished to date despite it still being successful.

Oh and what about Runes of Magic? Or one of the countless other WoW clones that are very succesful on the F2P to play model?... Or the countless other non-WoW clone MMOs that are very succesfull? Please remember the thread isn't about "is becoming the most popular F2P MMO out of reach of hobby developers", its about whether or not creating a successful MMO is out of reach of hobby developers. Pointing at Runescape and saying "its only the most popular one because it was one of the first and people didn't expect much back then" is unprovable, and completely pointless. Further, it people didn't expect much back then, then obviously they still don't, because its still the most popular F2P MMO in the world.[/quote]

Almost all of the "countless other non-WoW clones" and "countless other wow clones" are made by non-hobby developers. RuneScape is the most successful one made by a hobby developer, and it has had close to 130 million players with close to 7 million active. It would not be that successful if it released today. By comparison Runes of Magic has "4 million players," which are not necessarily active. This is 2 of the most successful out of the thousands of mmos released.

You pretty much argued against yourself because if runescape hadn't released when it did, Runes of magic would have probably taken its market share, and runes of magic was not made by hobby developers.

Again you are missing the point and arguing just to argue.

Go on, please name one, and remember he said web-based..
[/quote]
http://www.mpog100.com/

take a look. Pick any of the 20+ applicable ones.

...

As far as this sub-conversation is concerned I think all the posts I've replied to have been complete nonsense, so I'm going to stop spending my time on it.

As to the OP, MMORPGs are not out of the reach of Indy developers. That's been proven countless times, in the past, and recently, and anyone who's not blinkered or blind can easily find the proof. I think they are out of reach of "hobby" developers though. Succeeding in such a project would require extreme dedication at the very least.

As to the OP, MMORPGs are not out of the reach of Indy developers. That's been proven countless times

It's also just about as probable to for an Indy studio to build an MMO (that more than 50 people find worth to regularly spend their time on) as it is probable to win the lottery. I think that's the message people want to convey. (No offense meant.)

As far as this sub-conversation is concerned I think all the posts I've replied to have been complete nonsense, so I'm going to stop spending my time on it.

Coming from someone who thinks Tetris would have as much significance if it were released today vs 30 years ago, I can assure you this did not hurt my feelings.