SWTOR

[Rendakor]

I'd rather pay a monthly fee for content updates than buy them with microtransactions. The reason is mostly psychological; a flat, constant fee is easier to accept, then the immersion breaking "Insert Credit Card to Enter Dungeon" bullshit.

[UnSub]

I've been doing a bit of looking around at the MMO industry and here's what I think will happen: SWOR is definitely going to launch with a box cost and probably a sub fee. Why? Well, the box cost is a given (collectors edition with cloth map of Coruscant, imitation lightsaber handle in the box plus it will unlock costume parts in-game) and a sub fee is highly likely because accountants love the simple sums of 'players per month x sub fee = moneyhats'. There will be DLC for cash because that's how Dragon Age went and that kind of action appears successful for BioWare. There won't be large amounts of story content released each quarter because that takes time and money - patches will work on stuff that doesn't require VOs like crafting and PvP. The cash shop will sell costume parts and respecs and the like - extra character slots would be a hot seller for all those players who don't want to scrub a character to play all story options.

Players will get to the end of each storyline and sometime later some DLC will come along that allows for an extra adventure or two.

If the sub fee doesn't work out they can drop it, go F2P and still make lots of money from the cash shop and DLC.

They can charge all this because SWOR is going to sell its ass off regardless.

[Ashamanchill]

That's a very... forced comparison.  Regardless, is that really why you buy tickets to a sporting event?  By that logic, would you pay $50-100 to watch sports on a big screen TV in a room with a fuckton of people in it just because it's a Massive Shared experience?  

I went to the Skydome to watch a away game on the JumboTronScreenTV thing once, it didn't cost me anything though. 

I also played DaoC for years (still rant about it even) and I focus on the large scale PvP portions of WoW (for what it's worth/available).

Sorry to derail this but Skydome ftw. Way to represent T-Dot Fordel!!!!

[Count Nerfedalot]

After careful consideration, I'm okay paying a monthly fee for LOTRO and not for Dragon Age because, in order of priority:
1) Constant updates
2) Vast, vast amount of content (like, it takes a year of frequent playing just to see it all)
3) Serendipitous socialization (unplanned running into people doing interesting things)
4) Minor planned social events (Beer fights)
5) Group game content (preferably not forced)

If SWTOR offers enough of those, it's worth a monthly fee.  I might pay a fee just for the first one, if the content is good enough.  I probably would have paid a fee for Fallout 3 if the DLC came with it and came at about twice the rate it actually did (and kept going, obviously).

Excellent Post!

I'd add to that list (placed closer to the top than to the bottom):

6) Persistent characters in a shared world where I can play solo, play with friends, or make new friends, as the mood suits and circumstances dictate, all while playing the same game.  No need to change context/games/(or even characters in some games like EQ2) when a friend becomes available or has to leave.  And if I get stuck soloing, I can get help.
7) Multiplayer play in a "safe" environment where cheating, griefing, and general stupid shit are aggressively curtailed.

There's another reason having something to do with shared achievement, particularly in a small guild setting, but I'm too sleepy to explain it succinctly.  But I think of it similarly to building a sandcastle.  The result is valueless and ephemeral, but the experience is a lot more fun when done on a public beach with other people than when done alone or hidden in your back yard where nobody can see it.

[schild]

I like pipe dreams too.

[Venkman]

No, actually, you don't. 

Sidereal's list merely explains how the current genre works. Sometimes people think #3 and #4 need to be facilitated by the publisher, so they'll think one game or another does it better. But otherwise, everything listed including Count's addendum are already out there.

The problem is that not all of those things are delivered perfectly in WoW. As long as that's the case, some will consider it sour grapes that they need to go elsewhere to find them.

Which is why discussion boards exist.

[Count Nerfedalot]

Perzactly Darniaq.  Sidereal's list was specificly why he was willing to pay a subscription to a single game.  I added a couple of items to generalize the reasons that many people so far have been willing to pay subscriptions to MMO games in general.  No pipe dreams there at all, but an attempt to analyze the present and recent past.  Pipe dreams would be trying to come up with some OTHER reason than what currently exists for people to pay extra to keep playing - ideally something both more fun for the player and less expensive for the developer!

Developers looking to charge subscriptions need to keep in mind that customers, reasonably enough, expect something more from their box price + subscription fee than they get from their box price only games.  And whatever that something more is, it needs to be desirable enough to overcome the "I want to play a little but don't want to pay a whole month's subscription" barrier to re-entry (and that may even be a barrier to original entry for those who have been jaded/burned by past experiences).

[Venkman]

Right. But the development community already knows these things. Little has changed in the last ten years in terms of understanding what kind of game gets people to stay. Building that game the right way has been the problem. The underlying mechanics of carrot and stick in a shared space though, no need to reinvent that wheel if your entire pitch starts with "If we can get just 1% of WoW's installed base..." You know how to do that.

Unfortunately, the only people really pushing the boundaries are also the smallest titles with the narrower audiences. Someday though maybe something will become the dominant system to emulate. Right now though, if you're making a subs-based or F2P mtx-based persistent game, it's likely going to have a diku foundation within a largely combat-based game with a tacked on crafting system and maybe a vehicle or two. And if it's not a game, it's probably on Facebook

[Malakili]

And if it's not a game, it's probably on Facebook

You laugh, but a friend of mine who has been a fairly "hardcore" gamer for a long time has recently gotten involved in a bunch of facebook games that now dominate his gaming time.

[Merusk]

Mafia Wars is addicting enough and that's just button pressing a few times a day.  I don't even want to approach that Farmville game nearly everyone on my friends list has been suckered in to.

[schild]

The pipedream was having all of those things in one game and for it to actually be a fun game.

I'm not sure I want to get into a discussion on the addictiveness and design methodology behind facebook games. Most of the people here would have a fucking aneurysm if they knew how that industry worked.

[Venkman]

Most people here should actually recognize those things right away. They are MMOs without the distractions of realtime.

And if it's not a game, it's probably on Facebook

You laugh, but a friend of mine who has been a fairly "hardcore" gamer for a long time has recently gotten involved in a bunch of facebook games that now dominate his gaming time.

Actually, wasn't laughing. These are games after a fashion, but much closer to interactive slot machines (not the mere one-armed bandits) than a full interactive game. They're addictive for the same reasons Bejeweled is. Easy, quick, mindless (in most cases), and readily available without installs, and all your friends are right there. Check out AppData. But don't concentrate on #1 anymore than people should consider the average size of an MMO with WoW in the equation.

Lots of dicey things going on with them at the moment, including at FB itself. But nothing we haven't seen in the early days of MMOs either.

[Shatter]

After careful consideration, I'm okay paying a monthly fee for LOTRO and not for Dragon Age because, in order of priority:
1) Constant updates
2) Vast, vast amount of content (like, it takes a year of frequent playing just to see it all)
3) Serendipitous socialization (unplanned running into people doing interesting things)
4) Minor planned social events (Beer fights)
5) Group game content (preferably not forced)

If SWTOR offers enough of those, it's worth a monthly fee.  I might pay a fee just for the first one, if the content is good enough.  I probably would have paid a fee for Fallout 3 if the DLC came with it and came at about twice the rate it actually did (and kept going, obviously).

Excellent Post!

I'd add to that list (placed closer to the top than to the bottom):

6) Persistent characters in a shared world where I can play solo, play with friends, or make new friends, as the mood suits and circumstances dictate, all while playing the same game.  No need to change context/games/(or even characters in some games like EQ2) when a friend becomes available or has to leave.  And if I get stuck soloing, I can get help.
7) Multiplayer play in a "safe" environment where cheating, griefing, and general stupid shit are aggressively curtailed.

There's another reason having something to do with shared achievement, particularly in a small guild setting, but I'm too sleepy to explain it succinctly.  But I think of it similarly to building a sandcastle.  The result is valueless and ephemeral, but the experience is a lot more fun when done on a public beach with other people than when done alone or hidden in your back yard where nobody can see it.

Ill have what you're both smoking

[tkinnun0]

By that rationale, virtually any multiplayer game is a massive experience.  It essentially turns finding a group in WoW into the equivalent of a lobby in pretty much any other online game.

Yes, that's kinda true, so why do I feel that a lobby is just some random people while the dungeon finder is a massive shared experience? There's a few reasons: it's not the start and end of the game, but a small part of a more massive game and I can actually comprehend the sizes of the communities that are interacting there.

[eldaec]

I've never understood why WOW is considered a mmog but diablo 2 is not.

I don't have a problem with both being mmogs.

There's a few reasons: it's not the start and end of the game, but a small part of a more massive game

This is the key thing.

Each round of CS is completely independent, characters and achievements do not carry over, the game has ended, a new one begins. While each game runs you only interact with a limited number of people, hence not massive.

In WoW or Diablo 2, the game continues from round to round, you interact with more and more people as the game continues and your character develops, hence the massive tag.

[Velorath]

Each round of CS is completely independent, characters and achievements do not carry over, the game has ended, a new one begins. While each game runs you only interact with a limited number of people, hence not massive.

A lot of FPS games are starting to change in that respect though.  Modern Warfare has perks, MAG has character building, and TF2 has their whole Achievement thing.  FPS games have quickly been taking on the character building/carrot and stick mentality to keep people more invested in the game.

[Malakili]

I've never understood why WOW is considered a mmog but diablo 2 is not.

Its quite simply the large persistent world.  That was the original idea for games like this: What would a virtual fantasy world with real players as the actors in that world be like?   In my mind, that is what I associate with an MMO still, at least in principle. I think we've gone a long way away from that original idea, much more towards "What is a fun video game?"  In fact, Diablo 2 released today might label itself an MMO and get away with it.

[eldaec]

Each round of CS is completely independent, characters and achievements do not carry over, the game has ended, a new one begins. While each game runs you only interact with a limited number of people, hence not massive.

A lot of FPS games are starting to change in that respect though.  Modern Warfare has perks, MAG has character building, and TF2 has their whole Achievement thing.  FPS games have quickly been taking on the character building/carrot and stick mentality to keep people more invested in the game.

And they are becoming mmogs precisely because mmogs keep people playing longer.

[eldaec]

I've never understood why WOW is considered a mmog but diablo 2 is not.

Its quite simply the large persistent world.  That was the original idea for games like this: What would a virtual fantasy world with real players as the actors in that world be like?   In my mind, that is what I associate with an MMO still, at least in principle. I think we've gone a long way away from that original idea, much more towards "What is a fun video game?"  In fact, Diablo 2 released today might label itself an MMO and get away with it.

The orginal idea of persistent worlds was actually that your actions persisted. You change something, it stays changed, for everyone. Only EVE has that these days. Somewhere along the line persistent worlds came to mean 'the world exists forever and unchanging in place', which is fine, but the same can also be said about pac-man.

[sidereal]

I've never understood why WOW is considered a mmog but diablo 2 is not.

Well, it lacks 1-4 from my list and 7 from Nerfedalot's.  Although the list was elements I'm willing to pay a monthly sub for, not necessarily what defines an MMO.  But there's a pretty good overlap between the two definitions.

If you could play Diablo II and have an unplanned run-in with another party; if you could play it and run into a non-advancement-oriented social event; and/or if it had about 30x as much content, I suspect people would be a lot more comfortable calling it an MMO.

[Malakili]

I've never understood why WOW is considered a mmog but diablo 2 is not.

Its quite simply the large persistent world.  That was the original idea for games like this: What would a virtual fantasy world with real players as the actors in that world be like?   In my mind, that is what I associate with an MMO still, at least in principle. I think we've gone a long way away from that original idea, much more towards "What is a fun video game?"  In fact, Diablo 2 released today might label itself an MMO and get away with it.

The orginal idea of persistent worlds was actually that your actions persisted. You change something, it stays changed, for everyone. Only EVE has that these days. Somewhere along the line persistent worlds came to mean 'the world exists forever and unchanging in place', which is fine, but the same can also be said about pac-man.

I agree with you.  So my personal feeling is that the closer you are to that, the more MMO-like you are.  Though frankly, I'm starting to think that sort  of virtual world type game should be considered its own genre, and that the MMO genre is basically just moving towards persistent characters.  I think of the former more like legos or something, more of a toy than a game.

ETA: I think part of the reason we ARE moving away from that is that the market is just too small for it.  For instance, I think MISSING an event in a game like EVE is as much of the draw as being able to make every one of them.  The fact that stuff can happen when I'm not logged in is actually part of the draw, because it makes every event seem more important.    Though when ever I talk to this about people the vast majority of gamers think this sounds terrible because they might miss something, and "i'm paying the same 15 bucks as someone else, why should they get to play that and I can't."   At first I was genuinely surprised at the amount of players who don't want that kind of game, but now I realize I am just in the vast minority.

[Venkman]

Eve (and UO) are the prime examples. The kinds of things that can happen are academically awesome. But the way in which you need to play the game is very different from whatever/whenever-I-want WoW. They're a lot more immersive, a lot closer to "true MMO" than the massive-in-registered-accounts-only multiplayer RPGs of today. But most people end up realizing they'd need to make major lifestyle changes to achieve relative status in them in the same way they can achieve relative status in a diku (of course knowing that relative status is completely different).

In other words, Eve is absolutely required massive multiplayer with game-changing decisions around every corner. WoW is optional multiplayer with guaranteed payouts.

I've never understood why WOW is considered a mmog but diablo 2 is not.

Well, it lacks 1-4 from my list and 7 from Nerfedalot's.  Although the list was elements I'm willing to pay a monthly sub for, not necessarily what defines an MMO.  But there's a pretty good overlap between the two definitions.

If you could play Diablo II and have an unplanned run-in with another party; if you could play it and run into a non-advancement-oriented social event; and/or if it had about 30x as much content, I suspect people would be a lot more comfortable calling it an MMO.

D2 didn't have updates, rafts of content, spontaneous socializing in that lobby, spontaneous events, and safe multiplayer (on the closed servers, not the exploitastic open ones)? Musta been playing a different D2...

[Malakili]

But most people end up realizing they'd need to make major lifestyle changes to achieve relative status in them in the same way they can achieve relative status in a diku (of course knowing that relative status is completely different).

Maybe this is a much bigger part that I realize.  I'm very ok with not really having much "status."  I enjoy not being the hero.  In EVE Online I was part of a smallish industrial corporation that was important really only in our constellation, and not really beyond.  We were very rich, sold a lot of capital ships to people with more "status" than we had, but in the end I was a small time industrial guy in a world in which wars were being fought that I didn't participate in all that often.

For people that really really love being the hero, I could see quickly saying "I can't see being the hero here, I'm quitting"

[Rendakor]

D2 didn't have updates, rafts of content, spontaneous socializing in that lobby, spontaneous events, and safe multiplayer (on the closed servers, not the exploitastic open ones)? Musta been playing a different D2...

Diablo 2, for all the great game it was, did not have a lot of content. If it did, you would not have to play through the game THREE TIMES on progressively harder difficulty just to hit max level.

And I don't consider a chatroom "spontaneous socializing"; if the game lobby had simply been a large town where we could all run around, that would have made a world of difference to me. Having to click on a game and join it felt very immersion breaking; additionally, while that is "safe multiplayer" it isn't an unplanned encounter.

[Venkman]

That content argument was based on changing the goal of the game from playing through it to hitting the level cap. In that regard, almost no MMO has enough content to allow you to hit the cap without some sort of inventive grinding (which I'd equate to playing D2 through three times).

I do agree that the chat lobby analogy is a bit of a stretch though. I don't think I ever used it except to initiate trade and groups. However, I did spend enough time in it to see the same sort of retarded dialog we'd later call Barren's chat. Not exactly running into someone /music'ing under the east bridge out of Bree or a wedding on the coast of Stranglethorn Vale though, which was Shatter's point.

[Count Nerfedalot]

That content argument was based on changing the goal of the game from playing through it to hitting the level cap. In that regard, almost no MMO has enough content to allow you to hit the cap without some sort of inventive grinding (which I'd equate to playing D2 through three times).

I do agree that the chat lobby analogy is a bit of a stretch though. I don't think I ever used it except to initiate trade and groups. However, I did spend enough time in it to see the same sort of retarded dialog we'd later call Barren's chat. Not exactly running into someone /music'ing under the east bridge out of Bree or a wedding on the coast of Stranglethorn Vale though, which was Shatter's point.

Games with sufficient content to level up to max without repeating content: WoW, EQ2, LotRO.  Probably older games like AO and EQ as well.

Personally, chat lobbies don't count towards massive in my book.  Otherwise the term is meanigless since online Spades and CS would count MMOGs also since you can potentially interact with hundreds of thousands of other players over time.  The Massive Multiplayer distinction is only deserved when you can bump into "lots and lots" of other players in the game world.  "Lots and lots" generally being some arbitrary number larger than the max group size.  "In the game world" being in the spaces where you actually play the game, be it combat, crafting or whatever.  Games with instancing still count as massive provided that all characters still spend significant amounts of time playing in the shared spaces.  Games where shared spaces are only used for socializing or transportation do not count as massive.  So D2, DDO, and GW (and SWTOR from the sounds of it) do not deserve the Massive label.

[Count Nerfedalot]

The pipedream was having all of those things in one game and for it to actually be a fun game.

I'm not sure I want to get into a discussion on the addictiveness and design methodology behind facebook games. Most of the people here would have a fucking aneurysm if they knew how that industry worked.

We never said a game had to have ALL those things.  Just that those seemed to be things people were willing to pay subscriptions for. Sidereal even specifically said just one could be enough!  LTR

Best I can tell the entire Facebook "game" model is one big pile of scam layered on scam over scam, all aimed at children and ignorant/careless/naive internet novices, and the sooner a couple of big state DA's have that aneurysm and take them to court the better.

[Venkman]

Games with sufficient content to level up to max without repeating content: WoW, EQ2, LotRO.  Probably older games like AO and EQ as well.

Only if you measure "content" as grind. EQ1 and AO didn't have quests that would get you to max. I think EQ2 did but I never hit max

[eldaec]

People were complaining regularly in CoH that they couldn't fit all the mission chains in before they levelled up.

But with CoH and EQ2 (and most dikus post EQ) you get into the conversation about what really counts as content, ie, does a third warehouse of freakshow, or a fifth request to 'kill ten bears' really count, even if they do have a three paragraph backstory to make the 'unique'?

I doubt you could get a tenth of a typical level from EQ or AO without spawn camping, so not sure why they are being mentioned.

[Lakov_Sanite]

I got bored with coh really, really quickly.  There may have been content but it was incredibly repetitive. Sure you went to different parts of the city and fought different gangs of thugs in slightly different warehouses but from level 1 to 30(where i stopped) it was the same exact thing with little to no storyline at all.  eq2 while i found boring at least had more variety and wow really changed things in that while quests were similar (kill 10 X, gather 20 Y) you were often killing new things in very different locations with at least a paragraph of decent quest text so while it wasn't THAT much more than other games, it felt completely different.

[Stabs]

The Massive Multiplayer distinction is only deserved when you can bump into "lots and lots" of other players in the game world. 

I think this is the only definition that works. And as soon as you start to refine it it stops working as a definition.

Games with instancing still count as massive provided that all characters still spend significant amounts of time playing in the shared spaces.  Games where shared spaces are only used for socializing or transportation do not count as massive.  So D2, DDO, and GW (and SWTOR from the sounds of it) do not deserve the Massive label.

See? Stops working. Even WoW no longer fits this refined version of the definition now that patch 3.3 has made it a lobby for many players.

And there really is no point going down the route of having a special snowflake definition that means you're meaning something different from what everyone else on the planet means.

[Malakili]

The Massive Multiplayer distinction is only deserved when you can bump into "lots and lots" of other players in the game world. 

I think this is the only definition that works. And as soon as you start to refine it it stops working as a definition.

Games with instancing still count as massive provided that all characters still spend significant amounts of time playing in the shared spaces.  Games where shared spaces are only used for socializing or transportation do not count as massive.  So D2, DDO, and GW (and SWTOR from the sounds of it) do not deserve the Massive label.

See? Stops working. Even WoW no longer fits this refined version of the definition now that patch 3.3 has made it a lobby for many players.

And there really is no point going down the route of having a special snowflake definition that means you're meaning something different from what everyone else on the planet means.

Indeed, this is why i don't really care for a strict definition of what most MMOs are at this point, I'd much prefer to just have a stricter definition for a different genre (maybe called "virtual worlds" or some jazz).    At this point its really a marketing term more than anything.  It amounts to a  "We can charge per month for this game" label, and I don't think most people really care even remotely whether or not they can run into players in the game world, or do anything else on the lists made here, they care if they enjoy playing the game, and if its good enough, they'll put in their credit card number.  Sometimes I forget that just by posting on this forum I'm part of a really narrow self selecting group.

[Stabs]

I've been doing a bit of looking around at the MMO industry and here's what I think will happen: SWOR is definitely going to launch with a box cost and probably a sub fee. Why? Well, the box cost is a given (collectors edition with cloth map of Coruscant, imitation lightsaber handle in the box plus it will unlock costume parts in-game) and a sub fee is highly likely because accountants love the simple sums of 'players per month x sub fee = moneyhats'. There will be DLC for cash because that's how Dragon Age went and that kind of action appears successful for BioWare. There won't be large amounts of story content released each quarter because that takes time and money - patches will work on stuff that doesn't require VOs like crafting and PvP. The cash shop will sell costume parts and respecs and the like - extra character slots would be a hot seller for all those players who don't want to scrub a character to play all story options.

Players will get to the end of each storyline and sometime later some DLC will come along that allows for an extra adventure or two.

If the sub fee doesn't work out they can drop it, go F2P and still make lots of money from the cash shop and DLC.

They can charge all this because SWOR is going to sell its ass off regardless.

I'm sure this is right and another important aspect of this approach will be a certain marketing agility.

Any big MMO that launches has to deal with the problem that WoW is not only hugely popular but actively seeks to promote itself when other rival games launch. When AoC launched they announced Death Knights. When Warhammer launched they launched WotLK. When STO launches they'll release Arthas as a killable raid boss.

I suspect that when SWTOR launches WoW may go free to play shortly after. (In addition to launching Cataclysm around the same time).

There's several advantages for Blizzard in addition to hamstringing a rival game. Moving from sub-based to f2p is likely to make people less single-game fixated which will suit Blizzard since they have several other releases planned. Next f2p actually earns more money if people are very driven and a lot of WoW players are long term and driven - I think some people would spend $2000 if it meant they had every minipet in the game. (Recent research has indicated cash shops are more widely used than had previously been thought http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/26494/Study_58_Of_Users_Buy_Goods_From_FreeToPlay_Games.php ). And of course it would restore Blizzard's reputation as a wonderful pro-fan company in the same vein as their tradition of generous free content patches and generous free multiplayer support.

For SWTOR to be able to react to such a move they must launch with the business model Unsub describes. If they are purely box plus subs they'd be devastated by f2p WoW. They need the flexibility of being able to change if they have to. In fact they may have admitted it before reflecting and realising its a bad idea to show the other poker players the cards you have in your hand: http://www.massively.com/2008/12/09/star-wars-the-old-republic-to-be-microtransaction-based/

[Count Nerfedalot]

The Massive Multiplayer distinction is only deserved when you can bump into "lots and lots" of other players in the game world. 

I think this is the only definition that works. And as soon as you start to refine it it stops working as a definition.

Games with instancing still count as massive provided that all characters still spend significant amounts of time playing in the shared spaces.  Games where shared spaces are only used for socializing or transportation do not count as massive.  So D2, DDO, and GW (and SWTOR from the sounds of it) do not deserve the Massive label.

See? Stops working. Even WoW no longer fits this refined version of the definition now that patch 3.3 has made it a lobby for many players.

And there really is no point going down the route of having a special snowflake definition that means you're meaning something different from what everyone else on the planet means.

I haven't played WoW in over a year, so I'm not current on the details of how it's changed recently.  Are you saying nobody, or even very few people actually play out in the world anymore?  Nobody is doing the quests in Barrens or Stranglethorn or Silverpine Forest or Westfall or Un Goro or Winterspring or Plaguelands?  Everybody is in instances now for the entire game?  Or only the end-game, which has always been instanced?

[Stabs]

The Massive Multiplayer distinction is only deserved when you can bump into "lots and lots" of other players in the game world.

I think this is the only definition that works. And as soon as you start to refine it it stops working as a definition.

Games with instancing still count as massive provided that all characters still spend significant amounts of time playing in the shared spaces.  Games where shared spaces are only used for socializing or transportation do not count as massive.  So D2, DDO, and GW (and SWTOR from the sounds of it) do not deserve the Massive label.

See? Stops working. Even WoW no longer fits this refined version of the definition now that patch 3.3 has made it a lobby for many players.

And there really is no point going down the route of having a special snowflake definition that means you're meaning something different from what everyone else on the planet means.

I haven't played WoW in over a year, so I'm not current on the details of how it's changed recently.  Are you saying nobody, or even very few people actually play out in the world anymore?  Nobody is doing the quests in Barrens or Stranglethorn or Silverpine Forest or Westfall or Un Goro or Winterspring or Plaguelands?  Everybody is in instances now for the entire game?  Or only the end-game, which has always been instanced?

Patch 3.3 introduced a Dungeon Finder system. It's insanely popular although that may be partly because it's new. You just queue your character and when the group fills you are teleported to a dungeon. Many people are only playing that way and some people are levelling that way, one blogger mentioned never not grouping after level 15.

It's also changed the system where people had to travel to meeting stones (and possibly get ganked). It teleports you directly into the dungeon.

Lastly it's cross-realm so many of the people you do dungeons with you'll never see again and you can't send them tells even if you want to after the group ends.

But remember you said all characters spending significant amount of time in the spared spaces. Many people now never leave Dalaran except to be teleported directly inside an instance.

Also DDO doesn't neatly fit your definition. There are pvp pits in the shared spaces. So it doesn't fit the only "socializing or transportation" because you can fight other players in the shared spaces. So playing by your rules, DDO used to not be a MMO but became one when they patched in that feature.

My point is that there's really no virtue in playing semantic games. If SWTOR does not fit your definition, or for that matter my definition, of a MMO but it says on the box it is one then 5 million people will say it is and you and I will nerdily insist it isn't. That's not useful.