Console MMOs - Can they be successful?

I think it's more the nature of the business.

For one thing, look at the time to develop - Guild Wars 2 spent 5 years in development. Imagine if they targetted the 360 - the successor is already almost out. And it's not like MS or Sony can guarantee backwards compatibility or anything. These games take a ton of time to develop, while consoles are only around for a specified number of years. Even if an MMO comes out a year or two into a console's release... these games aren't built to last 3 or 4 years. EverQuest is on its fifteenth year and still getting updates. World of Warcraft is going on its eighth year.

Another thing is just the nature of consoles - think about patch certification and the like. It's just something that doesn't go well with the nature of the platform.

Final Fantasy XI has done well on console (and the PS2 version is still maintained, so it's not technical issues) but Square likely used that game's influence to get it on both Sony and MS platforms. DCUO is a Sony game.

I really don't think we will ever see a big MMO like Guild Wars 2 or WOW on consoles... outside of FFXI of course. MS has already canceled 2 or 3 of them, which tells me that they don't like the business of it.

For the xbox I think it really all comes down to the patch issue. Clearly there are a lot of patches for an MMO and the xbox environment for that is really not conducive to frequent patches.

MMO's are really expensive, and really risky. The other thing is long term A+ support, something that seems to eclipse most console devs still.

Did the DC Universe MMO not do well?

I thought it did?

It cost 40 grand a patch on both XBL and PSN.

"It cost 40 grand a patch on both XBL and PSN."

Or it costs $10,000 to do an XBL patch according to the Fez guy, and then an unknown amount to do a PSN patch. Yes, it costs money, but putting a definitive dollar amount on it as you just did is dreadfully inaccurate at best.

"Can console MMOs be successful?"

Apparently DCUO, Free Realms, and Home don't count? There is no "can it work?". It has already worked. I would understand if this was the 360 section where there are no MMOs present aside from the ancient FFXI, but this is the PS3 section where there are a number of successful MMOs already in place and doing fine.

"Inaccurate" doesn't mean it's irrelevant. I'm sure the actual price has to do with individual publishing deals on a game-to-game or publisher-to-publisher basis. And in all cases, both Sony and MS make it expensive and inconvenient enough to discourage rampant patching. More and more publishers and developers have been coming out of the woodwork over this past year and complaining about that.

Point being, regardless of actual dollar amounts, regular patching is strongly discouraged and de-incentivized by both Sony and MS. And I'm not convinced that's a bad thing, as long as it means developers are more thoughtful, deliberate, careful, and thorough in their title updates.

But I think the lack of big MMOs has a lot more to do with the differences in consumer taste on PC vs. consoles. As darklordjames points out, MMOs work just fine on console. But none of the big guys is ready or willing to give it a shot. Yet.

Also, no, Home definitely does not count.

Home certainly counts. There's a bunch of people. Online. In a game. It fits the MMO description perfectly.

I think in this day and age we can safely assume that "MMO" means "MMORPG."

That's a statement so ridiculous that it's not even worthy of a proper response.

I'm not against MMO's but I honestly think it was the worst thing to happen to gaming for a while. The thing is once you decided you're going to have the ability for thousands of people to interact at one time you have to make certain design concessions. Honestly most of the time you have 8 people or less interacting with each other. It just yanked all the arcady interaction out of games.

If more MMOs come to the console I hope they follow the Phantasy Star Universe Model of limited player instances and a kick ass chat room. That being said I have played quite a bit of DCUO and they really have made a fairly decent attempt at emulating arcady action. Then there is the recent Dust514...I'm not sure if it is local instances or not but if it is not then its an incredible technology leap(although I'm playing the beta and they have very clearly not achieved that yet)

Lucky for you, MMO's time in the sun has faded. After the runaway success of WoW, others have tried to enter the market in a big way, but they've all fallen far short. There are a handful of stable, consistent MMOs that have a steady, if modest, userbase. But the predicted future where MMOs would take over the gaming landscape never happened.
By your definition, any online game would be an MMO.

Massively Multiplayer Online

Isn't that what MMO stands for?

If that's the case, I think we'd need to define Massively(supports x users at once. I think MAG could be an MMO). darklordjames is right, although Home is more an awkward chat room than a game(I haven't been in there in years though).

Home is exactly like every other modern MMO, without a standard combat system. It's unique feature is that it's combat system shifts depending on which game instance you are currently in. You've got a little avatar that you dink around with and make dance. You have a crap chat interface. You have micro-transactions to dress your little in-game doll up. You have a hundred+ people on a server instance. You have a home that features persistence. It is exactly an MMO.

Yes, it is a terrible game that has spent three years in beta, but pretending that it isn't an MMO is ridiculous.

If Home isn't an MMO because it doesn't have "fantasy RPG" tacked on to the end of that, then neither is Second Life. Or Huxley. Or Firefall. Or Secret World. Or Guild Wars. Or an endless list of others that if you try to argue they aren't MMOs you are rightfully laughed at for even putting forth the silly idea. "MMO" does not imply elves and dice rolls, or even large numbers of players in instanced combat as Guild Wars shows.

If we want to define "Massively", I'd say anything over the standard 64-player cap that you see in the upper end of shooters like Frontlines. MAG is borderline MMOFPS, where it does have level progression, it does feature 250 player servers, but it severely lacks in persistence and non-combat interaction.

MAG is a MMO-FPS. Rudimentary, but it is one. The command structure, persistence, and load outs are pretty MMO like.

I think MMO games will make their way to the next gen of consoles.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to see Planetside 2 on PS4. And I think console gamers are going to take very kindly to these types of games.

I don't see it. An "MMO" isn't just a big online game. They have strong RPG elements (and, no, that doesn't mean fantasy settings). They are based on level progression, quest/mission structures, etc. I'd be willing to call Call of Duty an MMO far before I'd call Home or Second Life an MMO.
Exactly.

Regardless, it's a little silly to get caught up in semantics. The question is whether or not full-blown MMOs will make it big on consoles. The answer is that elements of traditional PC MMOs will continue to make it onto consoles in bigger ways--as with the loadouts and level progression systems in CoD and other online shooters, or in more "passive" ways as in Demon's Souls and Dark Souls. But my guess is that most games with the strongest MMO influence won't seem like actual "MMOs" to most people.

Then again, I'm someone who thinks the GTA games are just modern-day RPGs.
Edited by confidenceman - 9/1/12 at 1:33pm