That is actually a really good way to say it. I usually say something like, “this game is a ma-ma-morg”. Then people say “Bless you.” and then politely leave.
Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation pronounces it muh-mor-puh-guh.
I’ll admit that in spoken conversation I’ll usually just say “MMO” because the speaker knows what I mean. When writing it out, I will write the whole abbreviation since it is only 6 letters. It’s a lot easier to type than to say. And it’s a lot easier to get confused when writing things out than in a spoken conversation, where there is probably more context. There are MMOs that aren’t RPGs after all. But yeah, it’s not often I say “MMORPG” out loud because that’s a mouthful.
As heard here:
Warning, possible bad language, I haven’t watched the rest of the video.
Mild bad language, though it’s over quickly because apparently the narrator has no need to inhale at any point.
Hence, “Zero Punctuation”.
Bumped for relevant professional opinion piece:
Select quote:
You would kind of hope that people would stop acting like this is the only type of MMO that counts, but you would also kind of hope that people would stop gatekeeping which MMORPGs count as “real” MMORPGs based on wholly conjured standards, so your hopes being dashed are perhaps to be expected.
Good article. I’m a bit disappointed that it wasn’t mentioned that PoE is an ARPG (action RPG), specifically a Roguelike, which is a genre shared by the Diablo games, Torchlight games, and the dearly-departed Marvel Heroes.
Listing Hearthstone as an MMO seems off to me. Yeah, thousands of people log in to play at a time, but you only ever interact with one other person at a time. It’s like saying Chess.com is an MMO.
You have a point. I like parts of the article but what you’re pointing at goes to the fallacy presented in the very first paragraph of the article.
Let’s be realistic here, “MMO” as a term covers a whole lot of different game styles. I know this is a particular topic that I’ve touched on before, but the reality is that the whole reason behind calling a game specifically an MMO is that it allows for a whole lot of different games to coexist under the same general banner of… well, online title. That’s kind of the fun of working here; there are a lot of games that fall under that header.
It is true that “MMO” covers a lot of game styles. Any massively-multiplayer online game is, by definition and tautological reasoning, an MMO. So, there are MMOs that aren’t RPGs for example. But then it goes on to say that “the reality is that the whole reason behind calling a game specifically an MMO is that it allows for a whole lot of different games to coexist under the same general banner of… well, online title.” Which is not reality. That is BS. Not every online game is an MMO, otherwise we wouldn’t have the term MMO. Online games only cover the “O” in “MMO”. There’s a reason why the term exists.
Now the title of the article is “The wide umbrella of MMOs and online gaming subgenres” which accurately separates things. There are online gaming subgenres that aren’t MMOs. A MOBA is not an MMO unless you can have a “massive” amount of people playing together, and as far as I know a MOBA is going to have a couple of relatively small teams competing against each other. The same goes for a Battle Royale and I have never seen a looter shooter that allows a massive amount of people to interact together (though this may be my limited exposure to them; there may be a massive one I’m unaware of and will concede if someone has an example).
I praised the article with the understanding that it took pains to define various online game genres, and I thought it did a pretty good job. But if the goal is to put them under the “wide umbrella of MMOs” that is incorrect.
I never paid attention to the comments but there are some obvious shills for the site trying to back it up, and others who are quite rightly pointing out the BS of the premise. And I think one comment very succinctly covered why they have this article on this site:
“I simply do not agree with the premise of this article. Just because MOP chooses to ignore the root of its own name does not mean this applies to the genre as a whole.”
In other words, they are trying to come up with their own definition to explain why they are covering games that aren’t MMOs. When readers complain that they aren’t covering the sorts of games that they profess to cover, they are trying to redefine terms with doublespeak. Gamers, the very people they are trying to get to read their site, know what these terms mean, and they aren’t going to fool too many people.
This is because Fortnite is a GaaS game. (Games as a Service) Unlike a “traditional” MMO, they make income from microtransactions and Battle Passes.
Otherwise it’s a game in the genre of Battle Royale.
I see MMO more as a type of game structure and means of generating income. Where as previously most games were all making money from purchases of the game, MMOs made money via the game and a required subscription (typically). And now GaaS games are skipping the initial purchase price and a required subscription for microtransactions and Passes, often with a lootbox component. It’s just that most MMOs have been RPGs to try and get a long tail on the subscription income, other MMOs in other genres can exist depending on your choice of definition for what MMO requires.
GaaS games imo include Destiny, Apex Legends, The Division, Rainbow Six Siege and more
I think besides the time and costs to produce an MMO you’re missing that they’re not profitable enough. They were more profitable (at least appearing) than just producing a $60 game that only had to be bought once. They were/are an eternal revenue stream if people buy in and keep playing.
Now the AAA game industry has moved to microtransactions, lootboxes and more. I don’t remember Blizzard ever being in the same kind of position that Epic is now. And every other major game company wants that kind of money instead.
Of course games like Minecraft and Valheim are popular and trending, and people can call those MMOs, but they’re not so monetized as major game industry ones are. You could also argue they are/were indie MMOs.
But the same games that used to be subscription-based are now moving to a microtransaction financial model. Have those games changed genres?
Sounds like some people are trying to use MMO as a description of the business model, not of the gameplay or the tech. It sounds like @Atasama’s explanation of that article amounts to “We’re a website / magazine dedicated to reviewing MMOs; says so right in our masthead. So whatever we review is an MMO by definition.”
Sounds to this outsider like a recipe for confusion, not communication. Perhaps the term has been muddied into uselessness.
At its peak WOW might have been the most profitable video game that ever existed; the problem is there was only one WOW. Unless you hit that kind of popularity you’d need to keep costs down to make a good profit.
The obvious counterexample is Old Republic, which at the time was the most expensive video game ever produced, and never was remotely as popular as WOW.
That was my impression. They’re “professionals” in that they have a website with “Massive” in the name, not because they have a doctorate in MMO-ology or anything. Scanning some bios, none of them actually work(ed) in game development or in the gaming industry – aside from being writers on a website. It’s just a bunch of enthusiasts saying “We’re going to tell you what an MMO is and shame you if you think differently” but their opinion doesn’t hold any more weight than, well, anyone else’s. This doesn’t mean that their opinions are bad but they’re just another bunch of internet keystrokes.
Note that when I described the link as a “professional opinion piece” I was referring to the fact that the author was paid to write it.
I don’t agree that many of their listed subgenres are MMOs. Hearthstone and Fortnite, for example. And completely missed MMOFPS like Planetside 2.
I think that’s a large part of it. There’s usually a lot of grinding involved by design, especially when they have a subscription model. They WANT to drag you in and keep you playing, so they can keep siphoning those subscription payments off you every month. So they engineer it to be just rewarding enough to keep you grinding.
Lots of people (me among them) get really frustrated with that; I never have liked playing a game and having to put in massive amounts of time to basically get better, but get nowhere, as there’s not usually a “game” in the sense of something you can “win”. You can win quests, or complete storylines, but it’s the perpetual nature of it that I’m not wild about- I’ve always felt like I have to keep up in MMORPGs.
Combine that with the fact that a lot of them tend to devolve into chaotic PvP hellscapes if unregulated, and people aren’t so wild about them anymore. That’s IMO why the F2P/pay to win stuff is so attractive; it lets people skip the grinding and either protect themselves, or get a dominant edge without having to grind that out. And the company wins, as they charged you for it.
Fortnite is an MMO, in the sense of “Massively Multiplayer Online”, but it’s not an MMORPG. But pretty much ALL games with public multiplayer are MMOs these days- CoD, Battlefield, Tarkov, etc… as they have huge user bases online being selected into rounds. But none of them have the RPG elements, with the partial exception of Tarkov- in that one, your state after a raid does carry forward- health, money, gear, ammo all get damaged, depleted, taken, etc… and you have to get more. And the flea market/trader prices vary by the scarcity of the objects as well. It’s not the same kind of thing as unlocking weapons in CoD for example.
Your classic MMORPG is basically like an open world game a-la GTA V or the Fallout series, except that the vast majority of other sentient characters are actually other players, not NPCs. There are usually storylines and quests to achieve, but not really an endgame. And the world itself is modified by the actions of the player characters.
I don’t think I’d call Valheim a MMO- you can set up a public shared server and let anyone in, but the fundamental game is either a solo game, or with your buddies. It gets sort of MMO-ish when you do set up a public shared server, but it’s not actually one.
MMORPG players know that fashion is the true endgame. 
Oh, no arguments. That’s why about two paragraphs down from the bit you quoted I added
Yes, when people were looking at MMO(RPGS) as an endless stream of monthly cash, the profits looked amazing. But what happened, using myself as an example, is you went with ONE sub game. Very few were willing to pay for multiple monthly subs. For myself, I was originally a City of Heros player (damn I miss that game), since I’d been involved from Beta. But most of my friends played Everquest, and then WoW. Once I got to the endgame of CoH, I wasn’t involved in their equivalent of raiding, so had nothing to do. So I ended my sub with them and picked up WoW. And I stayed with WoW until @ Cata, where we all switched to Rift, cancelling out subs . . . and then around Warlords, we went back to WoW because again, that’s where our friends were mostly at.
There are so many options for decent F2P that as I mentioned, I don’t believe we’ll see the likes of WoW again unless/until there is the first major successful VR/AR based MMORPG. Which will then be hyperdominant for some time, because once it assumes the lead, I again believe the costs will prevent a major success for a competitor. Admittedly, we might end up with 2-3 based on different genres, such as a Super Hero (because who wouldn’t want VR flight?!?!?!) Scifi (because who wouldn’t want VR space views out of a cockpit), and fantasy (because who doesn’t want to stare into the elves cleavage cough cough I mean stare into the eyes of your enemies as you hew them down with a broadsword, yes, that’s what I mean).