The world of MMO-making is more and more competitive by the hour, with many big-name developers throwing their hats into the MMO development ring as time goes on. But where does this leave us? Are all of these games requiring subscription fees? Will I be left out in the street playing Star Trek Online because I'm paying hundreds a month in fees? Not if the "pseudo-MMO" has anything to do with it.
The pseudo-MMO is a game which is similar to an MMO, but lacks things that an MMO often has, such as subscription fees, a truly massive environment (as opposed to a very large environment), a centralized server, or non-instanced zones. They aren't "real" MMOs, but they come very, very close. By offering persistent worlds, large amounts of players on a server at any one time, and sometimes even single-player, these doppelgangers can capture the "feel" of an MMO without (or with, in some cases!) a subscription fee. So let's walk down the list.
Guild Wars is not an MMO. It has more in common with the Diablo franchise than any other game or MMO, and I'm not referring merely to the gameplay itself. Where Diablo II had Battle.net lobbies, Guild Wars has towns. Where Diablo II had player-created rooms, Guild Wars has fully instanced environments. You could almost say that Guild Wars is Diablo's grown up brother, who finally hit puberty and developed the ability to speak to girls.
Another pseudo-MMO that often comes close to appearing as a real one is Hellgate: London. Some notable features that differentiate it from a real MMO are things like instanced wilderness but shared towns (something it has in common with Guild Wars), a single-player mode, and distinctly smaller-sized environments. However, Hellgate has such MMO content as persistent worlds, continuing gameplay updates, and a subscription fee (although optional). It's non-MMO features, however, place it squarely in the realm of pseudo-MMO.
But what about other multiplayer games that offer persistent universes that people don't consider MMOs?
Take a look at Freelancer. It offers a massive environment consisting of several dozen star systems (and that's not even considering the many mods added to it), a persistent character system, and both PvP and PvE play. Why isn't it an MMO? Well, the max amount of players runs somewhere between 64 and 128 on a server at any one time, there's a comprehensive single-player mode, and the servers are player run as opposed to developer run. And because of these things, there is no subscription fee to play online. It may not be as comprehensive of a multi-player space simulation as the almighty EVE Online, but it's not bad.
Another is Neverwinter Nights, which offers much the same things that Freelancer does. Huge environments, persistent characters, PvP and PvE play, but it also tacks on story-line quests (Freelancer only has randomized missions) and GMs that can alter and guide content and players. But it isn't an MMO for the exact same reasons, too. No subscription fee, no centralized server (main server index aside), player-run communities, a smaller player base, and quite possibly one of the largest single-player experiences out there.
These games are (hopefully) the future of MMOs. Massive persistent universes with any of the following: Player-run servers, no subscription fees, excellent single-player modes, or fully instanced environments. Let us just hope that developers take notice and begin developing more of these "pretenders", these "doppelgangers", and ease up on our poor wallets.
Next week we'll look at games which incorporate MMO elements into a non-MMO atmosphere, and how viable pseudo-MMOs are in the emerging market.
Each week James Murff writes Under The Hood, a deeper look at MMO game mechanics and how they affect players, games, and the industry.
Reader Comments (12)
Posted: Nov 9th 2007 12:25PM Poddo24 said
::rant warning::
(Obviously we all have and are entitled to our opinions.)
I'm not sure how anyone can say that "fully instanced environments" and "player run servers" are hoped to be the future of MMOs. I would consider them maybe the future of these psuedo mmos you speak of, but when I want to play a true MMO, get involved into my character and feel like I'm in a real world, instanced environments are not on my wishlist.
Infact, instanced environments are what shy me away from those games. I want fully populated environments. I want to see my friends running around doing the same quests I am. I want to run into my friends while grinding. I want to find opposing faction people while questing, and rough them up a little. The last thing MMOs need right now is to seclude you from the "MM" part of MMO.
endrant
(Obviously we all have and are entitled to our opinions.)
I'm not sure how anyone can say that "fully instanced environments" and "player run servers" are hoped to be the future of MMOs. I would consider them maybe the future of these psuedo mmos you speak of, but when I want to play a true MMO, get involved into my character and feel like I'm in a real world, instanced environments are not on my wishlist.
Infact, instanced environments are what shy me away from those games. I want fully populated environments. I want to see my friends running around doing the same quests I am. I want to run into my friends while grinding. I want to find opposing faction people while questing, and rough them up a little. The last thing MMOs need right now is to seclude you from the "MM" part of MMO.
endrant
Posted: Nov 9th 2007 1:48PM (Unverified) said
The kicker is, you can get that with fully-instanced environments! The implementation right now is following the Guild Wars model though (Towns are MMO, wilderness is instanced) as opposed to Tabula Rasa (Many instances of the same environment on the same server) Somewhere in the middle ground between the two is the perfect mix.
Maybe a system where in town is MMO, and then you choose an instance you want to play, based on whether you are aiming for a more solo style of play or what you described above. It would offer players significantly more choice and (Possibly, I'm no technical expert) reduce costs on the developer end.
Also: sometimes you just gotta have instances. Getting ganked in WoW is no fun :(
Reply
Maybe a system where in town is MMO, and then you choose an instance you want to play, based on whether you are aiming for a more solo style of play or what you described above. It would offer players significantly more choice and (Possibly, I'm no technical expert) reduce costs on the developer end.
Also: sometimes you just gotta have instances. Getting ganked in WoW is no fun :(
Posted: Nov 9th 2007 6:59PM Poddo24 said
Holy crap, a blogger that responds to his comments! A discussion is to be had!
I guess you're right about giving the players the choice. Given the choice myself, I'd take the more populated servers. The problem I have with giving players that choice is that on a server for 5000, if they have a choice, maybe 2,000 will choose the solo style, leaving only 3000 on the realm to interact with, whereas if that choice didn't exist, I'd have all 5,000. So I probably just wouldn't play a game that catered to a more solo style of play, but who knows? Thats what trial subscriptions and betas are for.
the Gods of MMOs know that the genre needs an injection of something, I just don't know what it is :)
Reply
I guess you're right about giving the players the choice. Given the choice myself, I'd take the more populated servers. The problem I have with giving players that choice is that on a server for 5000, if they have a choice, maybe 2,000 will choose the solo style, leaving only 3000 on the realm to interact with, whereas if that choice didn't exist, I'd have all 5,000. So I probably just wouldn't play a game that catered to a more solo style of play, but who knows? Thats what trial subscriptions and betas are for.
the Gods of MMOs know that the genre needs an injection of something, I just don't know what it is :)
Posted: Nov 9th 2007 8:49PM (Unverified) said
Another thing is, bassed on your hypothetical situation, there's now 2k unhappy solo players who are more likely to be irritable, unkind, and just generally ill-behaved. I'd rather have 3k people who WANT to be a group environment than 5k where 2k don't want anything to do with it. But it's all about striking a balance between size, gameplay, and interaction, which is REALLY hard.
And yeah, I know. Surprising! You're the first commenter to reply to my responses so hey, good times. Hope you keep reading and discussing :)
Reply
And yeah, I know. Surprising! You're the first commenter to reply to my responses so hey, good times. Hope you keep reading and discussing :)
Posted: Nov 9th 2007 8:55PM Poddo24 said
Yeah, I see where you're coming from. The World PVP in me just likes more bodies around. But I can see where I'd rather hve more people that WANT to be there.
I've been here since launch, just kind of lurking though. But now I'm gonna try to get other posters toreply to my comments, hehe
Reply
I've been here since launch, just kind of lurking though. But now I'm gonna try to get other posters toreply to my comments, hehe
Posted: Nov 9th 2007 12:59PM (Unverified) said
/agree with Poddo
Neverwinter Nights was really fun for it's "time". Obviously not MMO. I wouldn't even really say it's "pseudo-MMO". But I guess from certain aspects you could classify it as such but I mean it really was just a multiplayer game. Just like Dungeon Siege. IMHO
Still it would be nice though to get more games that have the "MMO" feel to it where you don't have to pay. Although WoW and TR are WELL worth the money... and I was thinking about Power lvl'n another wow account...humm..... *drifts off into thought*
Neverwinter Nights was really fun for it's "time". Obviously not MMO. I wouldn't even really say it's "pseudo-MMO". But I guess from certain aspects you could classify it as such but I mean it really was just a multiplayer game. Just like Dungeon Siege. IMHO
Still it would be nice though to get more games that have the "MMO" feel to it where you don't have to pay. Although WoW and TR are WELL worth the money... and I was thinking about Power lvl'n another wow account...humm..... *drifts off into thought*
Posted: Nov 9th 2007 1:44PM (Unverified) said
The thing that sets NWN apart from other titles in the genre is the fact that its multiplayer servers are persistent worlds. Often with continual gameplay updates. This lends a very MMO feel to the game, even though the player count per server isn't nearly as high as most MMOs. It straddles the line, really.
Reply
Posted: Nov 9th 2007 1:12PM Kamokazi said
Thank you! Finally, someone calling Guild Wars out for what it truely is. I hate it when people give me crap about paying subscription fees when they are playing Guild Wars for 'free'. Now I have something to show them.
Something I think that you almost hit on but quite didn't...the possible father of psuedo-MMO's, Diablo II's 'Closed' Realms. It is probably the first significant instance of multiplayer RPGs that house character data server-side as a free service. So maybe that is the first Psuedo-MMO? Just a little thought.
Now to the rant :-) I don't think this is the furture of MMO's, but it will definately help shape them for better or for worse. I actually hope it is NOT the future. I don't mind paying a subscription fee if the service I get is worth it. I don't like instancing, I like seeing players encouraged to cooperate and achieve goals. But this is of course ruined by uncooperative and generally rude players. Which brings me to something else I thought of earlier.
EQ had one of the best MMO communities ever, and I thought it was just because the players were generally more mature, but someone in Tablua Rasa a couple nights ago made me realize something. EQ was more mature, because server populations were smaller, and if you ticked people off, your reputation was screwed. Maybe devs should try to focus on worlds and servers designed for smaller populations? No name changes or transfers, and advancement should be slow enough that you are forced to think before doing something rude or obnoxious.
As far as your other points, a single-player mode seems kind of pointless....just make good solo content in a game for that...at any given level, there should be a productive solo play option that can doesnt have a minimum time investment.
Player-run servers aren't so bad, but very, very few 'players' would have the hardware to support thousands of players, which is what makes a MMO a MMO.
So, I really hope these games are NOT the future of MMOs, but they could (and should) be their own future sub-genre of MMOs.
Something I think that you almost hit on but quite didn't...the possible father of psuedo-MMO's, Diablo II's 'Closed' Realms. It is probably the first significant instance of multiplayer RPGs that house character data server-side as a free service. So maybe that is the first Psuedo-MMO? Just a little thought.
Now to the rant :-) I don't think this is the furture of MMO's, but it will definately help shape them for better or for worse. I actually hope it is NOT the future. I don't mind paying a subscription fee if the service I get is worth it. I don't like instancing, I like seeing players encouraged to cooperate and achieve goals. But this is of course ruined by uncooperative and generally rude players. Which brings me to something else I thought of earlier.
EQ had one of the best MMO communities ever, and I thought it was just because the players were generally more mature, but someone in Tablua Rasa a couple nights ago made me realize something. EQ was more mature, because server populations were smaller, and if you ticked people off, your reputation was screwed. Maybe devs should try to focus on worlds and servers designed for smaller populations? No name changes or transfers, and advancement should be slow enough that you are forced to think before doing something rude or obnoxious.
As far as your other points, a single-player mode seems kind of pointless....just make good solo content in a game for that...at any given level, there should be a productive solo play option that can doesnt have a minimum time investment.
Player-run servers aren't so bad, but very, very few 'players' would have the hardware to support thousands of players, which is what makes a MMO a MMO.
So, I really hope these games are NOT the future of MMOs, but they could (and should) be their own future sub-genre of MMOs.
Posted: Nov 9th 2007 1:41PM (Unverified) said
Wow! What an awesome comment! I think I'll just address a few of your points first.
Firstly, I do not think that the "no name changes/transfers" would not go over well. MMOs are a very social medium, and when people play, they like to play with their friends (I play with my IRL friends myself). As friends shift around, so do servers, so the name change and transfer options are there to ENSURE it stays social, rather than give you a way out.
Secondly, I can tell my "hopefully" comment got your attention :) I didn't mean it quite as what you took it for, though. My thought was for MMOs to include things from pseudo-MMOs, like a single-player mode (Great for people with poor connections but enjoy that sort of thing), instanced environments (As controversial as this is, I'm sure that the town/wilderness set up from Guild Wars works just fine. Just needs some tweaking to be more "MMO-eqsue"), and player-run servers (This one is pretty controversial too. Publishers don't like people running private servers as it cuts back on the cash flow). Subscription fees aren't really a big deal with me (Except right now, when I have 3!) as long as it guarantees FREE added content and continued technical support for the game.
The player-run rooms of Diablo II are close to being the first pseudo-MMO, but fall just short of the mark. You could call it a "pseudo-pseudo-MMO" :P
But again, thanks for your comment! You raise some really good points :)
Reply
Firstly, I do not think that the "no name changes/transfers" would not go over well. MMOs are a very social medium, and when people play, they like to play with their friends (I play with my IRL friends myself). As friends shift around, so do servers, so the name change and transfer options are there to ENSURE it stays social, rather than give you a way out.
Secondly, I can tell my "hopefully" comment got your attention :) I didn't mean it quite as what you took it for, though. My thought was for MMOs to include things from pseudo-MMOs, like a single-player mode (Great for people with poor connections but enjoy that sort of thing), instanced environments (As controversial as this is, I'm sure that the town/wilderness set up from Guild Wars works just fine. Just needs some tweaking to be more "MMO-eqsue"), and player-run servers (This one is pretty controversial too. Publishers don't like people running private servers as it cuts back on the cash flow). Subscription fees aren't really a big deal with me (Except right now, when I have 3!) as long as it guarantees FREE added content and continued technical support for the game.
The player-run rooms of Diablo II are close to being the first pseudo-MMO, but fall just short of the mark. You could call it a "pseudo-pseudo-MMO" :P
But again, thanks for your comment! You raise some really good points :)
Posted: Nov 9th 2007 6:02PM (Unverified) said
I've always been tempted to refer to the Phantasy Star Online and Phantasy Star Universe games as MMOs, but I've retracted that description recently for the same reasons as above; it uses instance-based towns/outposts (PSO only) and explorable environments, with only the room/group creation lobby falling outside this rule (much like Guild Wars). Despite this, they still FEEL like MMOs, which is why sites like this do coverage them. Simple as that.
Yes, I realise there's not a jot of news about either Phantasy Star game on Massively. PSO, for one thing, is only barely surviving in the form of Blue Burst for PC (psobb.com). PSU, on the other hand, has an upcoming expansion and in-game sponsored events and giveaways every so often (eg. the 1-Up Cup that's currently running).
Writers of Massively, I humbly ask that you add Phantasy Star Universe to the (already vast) lineup of games that you cover.
Yes, I realise there's not a jot of news about either Phantasy Star game on Massively. PSO, for one thing, is only barely surviving in the form of Blue Burst for PC (psobb.com). PSU, on the other hand, has an upcoming expansion and in-game sponsored events and giveaways every so often (eg. the 1-Up Cup that's currently running).
Writers of Massively, I humbly ask that you add Phantasy Star Universe to the (already vast) lineup of games that you cover.
Posted: Nov 9th 2007 8:50PM (Unverified) said
You are ahead of your time. Read Under The Hood next week and you'll know what I mean :)
Reply
Posted: Nov 9th 2007 11:40PM (Unverified) said
Ah, yes; I just spotted the second-to-last paragraph in the article.
Be sure to give PSO: Blue Burst a little plug; the official servers are on the verge of removal, and the remaining players are desperately trying to attract people back (mostly the people who played the console versions and have fond memories of them; usually tempted back when told that an 'Episode 4' now exists). I'm not hoping for a sudden revival, but a swansong for the dying game would be nice.
Reply
Be sure to give PSO: Blue Burst a little plug; the official servers are on the verge of removal, and the remaining players are desperately trying to attract people back (mostly the people who played the console versions and have fond memories of them; usually tempted back when told that an 'Episode 4' now exists). I'm not hoping for a sudden revival, but a swansong for the dying game would be nice.







