Change the genre "Massively Multiplayer" to "Multiplayer Online"

[Phoenix (yes, another one)]

While all massively multiplayer games, are multiplayer online games, the reverse is not true. A massively multiplayer game allows for a large number of people to actively play together, while some multiplayer online games like C9, Dragon Nest, Dark Blood, and many others usually only let you play in a group of four. Four people playing together is not massive, so that genre isn't accurate for all the games using it. It's like how shooters, brawlers, hack and slash games, as well as others have been generalized under the genre action. All of those are action games, just different types, so the generalized genre is accurate.

[Gus the Crocodile]

It's not really clear what you're suggesting. My initial reading was that because some people are in your opinion misapplying the term Massively Multiplayer, that Steam should change the term itself. That seems kind of silly, I mean, if people were labelling their game as a racing game when clearly it was a turn-based RPG, that wouldn't mean we should get rid of the racing game category, right? It's not the label's fault if people misuse it.

There's already a Multiplayer category for devs to use in labelling their game, not to mention tags, so I don't think getting rid of Massively Multiplayer would be an improvement.

Maybe you're just asking for these few games to have their labels changed, though. That option would make more sense to me, but I don't know anything about them, so I can't weigh in on whether it's warranted in these cases.

One small thing you might do is to find any of these games that have been tagged as "MMO" or "Massively Multiplayer" or whatever, and report the tag as not being appropriate for that product. Doesn't affect the "genre", of course, but I guess there's a slim chance it might make someone take a look at it (wishful thinking from someone who has no idea how Valve's tag moderation is organised).

[Phoenix (yes, another one)]

How is that not clear? Massively multiplayer is just a more specific type of multiplayer online game, just as a brawler is a specific type of action game. I'm asking for a generalized genre that more effectively describes all the games that would use it than what is currently being used.

Also when you go to a game showing "MMO" in their own category list on the right side along with things like "multi-player," or "trading cards," and click on the MMO link, you'll find even Steam gets confused by it, and gives you the "all" list instead.

There are companies listing games under "Massively Multiplayer," and/or "MMO," as it's the closest thing available to what the game actually is, a multiplayer online game. There are also companies not using one or the other, as they don't fit what the game actually is, but then can't properly indicate the game is a multi-player game, that is only played through an online service. "Multi-player" on it's own isn't sufficient, as there are many multi-player games that aren't played through an online service. Simply changing "Massively Multiplayer," and "MMO," to "Multiplayer Online" provides a classification that would accurately fit all those games, so there would no longer be an issue of making do with the closest, but incorrect option.

[Gus the Crocodile]

Phoenix (yes, another one) a écrit :

Massively multiplayer is just a more specific type of multiplayer online game, just as a brawler is a specific type of action game.

Yes, that's true, of course, but "Multiplayer Online" is just a specific type of multiplayer game (also, just a specific type of online game), and you think that's too broad. So I'm not really seeing how you want a generalised genre.

Phoenix (yes, another one) a écrit :

Also when you go to a game showing "MMO" in their own category list on the right side along with things like "multi-player," or "trading cards," and click on the MMO link, you'll find even Steam gets confused by it, and gives you the "all" list instead.

It's actually not the all list (if by that you mean the list of all games) - you can see that by the fact there's only a few hundred games in it. It's also not the "all massively multiplayer games" list - that gives a slightly smaller list for me (453 vs 464 for clicking MMO).

There is something up: the MMO category seems to show up on Store pages but not in the Advanced Search category list, which may be why you thought it was the "all" list. That may be the extent of the bug but I wouldn't know.

Phoenix (yes, another one) a écrit :

There are companies listing games under "Massively Multiplayer," and/or "MMO," as it's the closest thing available to what the game actually is, a multiplayer online game. There are also companies not using one or the other, as they don't fit what the game actually is, but then can't properly indicate the game is a multi-player game, that is only played through an online service.

It's simply my contention that in both of these situations, it's the companies' fault, not the labelling system. Nobody is forcing them to apply incorrect labels to their games.

If you make a multiplayer RPG that's online but not massively multiplayer...then put it under RPG, give it the multiplayer category and be done with it. Because contrary to what you say, that's the closest thing available to what the game actually is. Now I'd suggest Steam should also have an "Online" category to go alongside Multiplayer, but now that tags exist there's nothing stopping people classifying things as online where it's appropriate, along with basically any and all other details.

Phoenix (yes, another one) a écrit :

"Multi-player" on it's own isn't sufficient, as there are many multi-player games that aren't played through an online service.Simply changing "Massively Multiplayer," and "MMO," to "Multiplayer Online" provides a classification that would accurately fit all those games, so there would no longer be an issue of making do with the closest, but incorrect option.

I don't buy this at all. There are many RPGs that aren't run through an online system, but that doesn't make RPG "insufficient" as a category. It just makes it a broad category, one that...accurately fits the games inside it, so there's no issue of making do with the closest but incorrect option.

Whether something is multiplayer and whether it is/can be played online are two separate, unrelated things, which surely makes them best applied separately. So it's clear to me that your suggestion is different to the current state, but I'm not really seeing why it's better. It seems to me you're just moving the boundary of "when does something deserve to be in the genre list" from one arbitrary position to another arbitrary position.

[Phoenix (yes, another one)]

Gus the Crocodile a écrit :

Yes, that's true, of course, but "Multiplayer Online" is just a specific type of multiplayer game (also, just a specific type of online game), and you think that's too broad. So I'm not really seeing how you want a generalised genre.

What you're not getting in all of this is that massively multiplayer/MMO isn't being used to just refer to how many play the game like single-player, and multi-player do. Instead it refers to how it is only provided as a online game service, not as a stand alone product.

All adding an "online" tag could do is make people think the game allows for online multi-player, not just local multi-player, so it could easily create more confusion. "Multiplayer Online" could be further improved to "Multiplayer Online Service," although that seems too long, they clearly want shorter tags. They also clearly don't want to add more tags than need be, or else there would be tags like "shooter," "brawler," "hack and slash," and many others. This is why the suggestion was to change an existing tag, to one that still accurately describes the games that are MMOs, while also being appropriate for online service games that aren't MMOs. Then aside from that games made to be provided as an online service, rather than a product, always incorporate a multi-player aspect, to separate the two wouldn't make sense.

Gus the Crocodile a écrit :

It's actually not the all list (if by that you mean the list of all games) - you can see that by the fact there's only a few hundred games in it. It's also not the "all massively multiplayer games" list - that gives a slightly smaller list for me (453 vs 464 for clicking MMO).

Go to another page of the list when you go from the "MMO" link, the number of games jumps from around 450, to over 13 000. Page two when I looked even had the earlier Tomb Raider games, which are single player games. Still sound like it all works as intended to you?



I'm not going to bother quoting any more of what you wrote. You sound like you either don't get the problem at all, or are a Steam fanboy that thinks they can do no wrong, so want to say there is no problem. Steam/Valve is providing an inaccurate label for companies to use to reference their games. Blaming the companies for picking between one inaccurate option, or another, because a label that does actually fit the game isn't available is absurd.

[JOW]

Phoenix (yes, another one) a écrit :

Steam/Valve is providing an inaccurate label for companies to use to reference their games. Blaming the companies for picking between one inaccurate option, or another, because a label that does actually fit the game isn't available is absurd.

I feel your pain :)

But the language of advertising is not designed to communicate factually; it is designed to cast the broadest attention net possible to maximize consumer response. For example, In so far as the actual consumer experience with the advertised game is concerned, what *specific* meanings can be attached to the so called descriptors "Action", "Casual", "Indie", "Strategy", or "Adventure"? If you got a few experienced game designers together and said that you wanted to hire them to make one of these games, you would be in for hours more of description because Steam's game "description" is the language of advertising and not the language of engineering or factual communication.

The majority of consumers may know what they like but are steered by vague language to attend to the promotional material of offerings that most likely incite, "Oh no, it's one of *those* games" as the disgusted reaction. The advertising is not failing here it is succeeding to garner the most consumer attention to find the few that will purchase the product.

A factual language could be presented on Steam to allow the consumer to easily ignore the promotional material of games that he is sure not to want but you will not see it happen here because when you enter the Steam store you are swimming in a sea of advertising. So don't stop kicking or you will submerge and drown.

[Gus the Crocodile]

Phoenix (yes, another one) a écrit :

What you're not getting in all of this is that massively multiplayer/MMO isn't being used to just refer to how many play the game like single-player, and multi-player do. Instead it refers to how it is only provided as a online game service, not as a stand alone product.

I'm not getting that because up until this post, your suggestion has been to change the label to "Multiplayer Online". To me (and I suspect many others, but I will endeavour to speak only for myself), that means any game with an online multiplayer component. It doesn't at all mean "a game that's provided as an online service, not as a product". So if that's what you're trying to describe, up until you started suggesting changing it to "Multiplayer Online Service", the suggestion has not at all been a move toward clarity and accuracy.

I mean, I don't have any kind of problem with one of Steam's major "genres" being a collection of every game with an online multiplayer component, but it doesn't sound like that's what you're looking to create. If you're trying to describe games that require some kind of external online service, the....well, "external online service" seems okay to me. Or perhaps if you're not talking about "external" services then I would suggest "online only" or "always online" - or "online service", yes.

I don't see a reason to tie "multiplayer" to it; as I've said, they're two separate things and I think the best way to achieve clarity and accuracy is classify separate things separately. If what you're trying to describe is "a game that's provided as an online service", well, nothing in that description implies the inclusion of multiplayer. If you're trying to describe "a game that's provided as an online service and also has multiplayer", then okay, but I don't see why they should be one thing in the main list, any more than any other combination of attributes. The main genre list has Action, and RPG, and yet some games are both action games and RPGs. That's okay; it doesn't necessitate the addition of "Action RPG" as a separate list entry, right?

Besides, if, as you say, games in this category "always incorporate a multplayer component", then it's implied anyway. I don't think that's a sensible assumption myself - there's nothing stopping people releasing single-player games tied to online systems. See the most recent SimCity (I believe they eventually patched in an offline mode, but I think it demonstrates the point anyway, because they could have not done that and the game would still have existed). There's also the muddy waters of things like UPlay accounts, or even Steam itself - with very few exceptions (Dungeons of Dredmor is the one example I know off the top of my head) games on Steam are all provided as a service, not a standalone product. According the the subscriber agreement at least, what you buy is not a game, but a subscription for continued access to a game.

I don't mean to muddy the waters too much, but if you think developers of games that aren't massively multiplayer are "forced" to apply that description despite it being incorrect, then imagine if the SimCity devs sold their game on Steam. Would they be "forced" to use the massively multiplayer genre too, because apparently it means having an online service? Couldn't they just put it in Simulation because it's a simulation game, regardless of whether it has an online service? And if they could - if they're not forced to not do that - then what's stopping these other devs doing it too? Their games aren't solely defined by having an online service, after all. Let them describe the actual gameplay like everyone else.

Phoenix (yes, another one) a écrit :

"Multiplayer Online" could be further improved to "Multiplayer Online Service," although that seems too long, they clearly want shorter tags. They also clearly don't want to add more tags than need be, or else there would be tags like "shooter," "brawler," "hack and slash," and many others.

Shooter is a tag. As is brawler, and Hack and Slash. You can have whatever tags you want (mostly).

Phoenix (yes, another one) a écrit :

Go to another page of the list when you go from the "MMO" link, the number of games jumps from around 450, to over 13 000. Page two when I looked even had the earlier Tomb Raider games, which are single player games. Still sound like it all works as intended to you?

It didn't seem like it was working as intended in the first place - I quite specifically stated that something was up, but also that I was not in a position to diagnose the extent of the problem. I simply pointed out that it wasn't as simple as the MMO link just giving you the "all games" search, because the first page of results quite clearly indicates it does function partially. It is something Valve should look it, I'm sure we agree on that.

Phoenix (yes, another one) a écrit :

I'm not going to bother quoting any more of what you wrote. You sound like you either don't get the problem at all, or are a Steam fanboy that thinks they can do no wrong, so want to say there is no problem.

No, I want to say there is no problem because I don't believe there's a problem, for reasons which I've tried to explain. If you don't want to engage with my arguments that's up to you, but disagreeing with you does not make someone a fanboy any more than it indicates an inability to understand.

Phoenix (yes, another one) a écrit :

Steam/Valve is providing an inaccurate label for companies to use to reference their games. Blaming the companies for picking between one inaccurate option, or another, because a label that does actually fit the game isn't available is absurd.

There is no such thing as a fundamentally inaccurate label. It's just a label. It can only be inaccurate if someone applies it inaccurately. Nobody is forcing these developers to put their games in sections where they don't belong. If your game isn't massively multiplayer, then just don't put it under massively multiplayer. Put it under whatever other genre(s) it falls in (most commonly in these cases I suspect would be things like Adventure, Action, and RPG, but of course any may apply). It isn't the job of one label to completely describe your product and it isn't a failure if that doesn't happen. It's okay to have your game in, say, RPG if it's one of these online-only things, because RPG is a broad space. Torchlight and Avernum are both RPGs but both very different games, and that's fine. These online-focused games can similarly exist in these spaces.

And that's not the limit of their ability to describe themselves. Developers and players can tag games with any label they want (almost - there are some unfortunate restrictions in place) to help people find more specific types of games within each broad category.

[Phoenix (yes, another one)]

JOW a écrit :

But the language of advertising is not designed to communicate factually; it is designed to cast the broadest attention net possible to maximize consumer response. For example, In so far as the actual consumer experience with the advertised game is concerned, what *specific* meanings can be attached to the so called descriptors "Action", "Casual", "Indie", "Strategy", or "Adventure"? If you got a few experienced game designers together and said that you wanted to hire them to make one of these games, you would be in for hours more of description because Steam's game "description" is the language of advertising and not the language of engineering or factual communication.

If I was just asking for them to make the tags specific, and more descriptive, I'd be asking for them to add many additional tags. I'm not, I'm just asking them to change the tag they're using to indicate the game is a type of online game service, rather than an on it's own product, to be more inclusive of all the types of games that are provided as online game services. Not all online service games are MMOs, but all of them are multi-player online games, that's the point of my suggestion.

Jokimoto a écrit :

Browsing the genre tags I see, "as applied the most frequently to products across Steam, listed in order of how frequently they have applied.":

Massively Multiplayer
Multiplayer
Co-op
Online Co-op
Local Co-op

Looking at the genre tags of the games mentioned in the OP:

Dark Blood - Action, Free to Play, Massively Multiplayer, RPG
Dragon Nest - Action, Free to Play, Massively Multiplayer, RPG
C9 - Action, Free to Play, Massively Multiplayer, RPG

If none of these games have any open-world areas, where a large number of players can get together at once, then I agree they shouldn't be labelled "Massively Multiplayer". DCUO, for instance, has such an open world that can accomodate hundreds of people. The actual "dungeons" are for a max of 8. That seems to qualify as "massive" to me.

If these games listed do have such areas then I don't see the problem with their tags, even if the actual dungeon runs are limited to only 4 or 6 or 8 people.

I haven't played DCUO, but based on your description, it sounds like it uses a town hub with instanced dungeons like the others. With those games the part where you actually play is the dungeons, not the town area, that's just an elaborate lobby area, or a graphical chat room. The important thing for it to be massively multiplayer is that you can play the main draw of the game with a lot of people.

Any rate, while people could sit around an argue what make a game a MMO, if Steam used a more inclusive tag for online service games, like "multi-player online" there would be no need to. It's the massive part of MMO that is always the word that causes the dispute.

Gus the Crocodile a écrit :

<stuff>

I didn't read it. The issue is really a very simple one, and you've already rubbed me the wrong way, so I won't waste my time reading all that.