Seventy-Five Percent of MapleStory Marriages End in Divorce

September 14, 2011 -

Free-to-play MMO leader Nexon America passed along some interesting statistics of relationships in its game Maple Story, and how they are just as awful in the virtual world as they are in real life - no offense intended to my wife.

According to data released by Nexon America, virtual divorces are all too commonplace among online gamers, with 75 percent of MapleStory in-game marriages ending in heartbreak. Last year in North America 26,982 in-game marriages were performed with a price tag of $25 per wedding. Of those marriages, 20,344, or 75 percent, have been annulled at the players’ request.

Nexon thought this was an interesting phenomenon and decided to ask MapleStory players what was going on. One player named Tyler from Vancouver, B.C., shared an interesting story:

“I was young, naive, and thought I had met ‘the one.’ She asked me what I wanted in MapleStory for my birthday, and I told her that the only thing I could ever want was for her to marry me."

After the ceremony, Tyler said that he saw his relationship heading in the wrong direction:

"She started saying that I wasn't the person she fell in love with. That I had changed, and that I didn't seem to care about her anymore.”

Tyler’s soon-to-be virtual ex-wife decided to teach him a lesson:

“I got a call from my best friend, saying that all of my items were dropping. It was her. Less than a week later, we decided that we needed to sever all ties between us, and we had our marriage annulled. I haven't talked to her since.”

Tyler Apparently isn't alone in his virtual relationship troubles. Seth, a 19-year-old from Colorado Springs, Colorado, tells his tale:

“My former Maple spouse and I started off great; going on party quests together, boss runs, training, helping each other become better Maplers. Then I realized after a while that she was only out there to get free things off of me and we got in this conversation where she admitted to this accusation, so I decided I would have to annul our Maple marriage.”

On the plus side, there's no such thing as alimony or divorce settlements in MapleStory. Players are not required to divide their possessions up or anything crazy like that: “Getting married in MapleStory can be quite a fun event for the happy couple and their friends,” said MapleStory producer Crystin Cox. “While it looks like our players break up at a much higher rate than people do in real life, at least our players are not on the hook for alimony. Couples who break up are not required to split up their loot, virtual pets or any enchanted items.”

They do, however, have to pay for an annulment.


Comments

Re: Seventy-Five Percent of MapleStory Marriages End in Divorce

I read this with a smile on my face. Sadly the reality clashes with the youth - oh so naïve. Though, I recommend looking at the follow-up article from 2012 if you found this interesting.

~MapleSource // MapleStory Leveling Guides

Re: Seventy-Five Percent of MapleStory Marriages End in Divorce

"Then I realized after a while that she was only out there to get free things off of me and we got in this conversation where she admitted to this accusation, so I decided I would have to annul our Maple marriage.”"

 

Wait.... she married you to get free things?????? And here I was so secure with the thought that my wife makes great dinners and gets me awesome health insurance coverage.... guess I need to do some thinking...

MMPR

Re: Seventy-Five Percent of MapleStory Marriages End in Divorce

You horrible, horrible person. You pay her back for every minute of her time. XD

-Austin from Oregon

Feel free to check out my blog.

Re: Seventy-Five Percent of MapleStory Marriages End in Divorce

Why...just...why would you play maplestory. I sank hours into that leveling treadmill and had little to no fun.

-Austin from Oregon

Feel free to check out my blog.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will Target Australia sell the next GTA game upon its release?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenGoth - And the blame for that rests solely on the ding bats who grossly overreacted to a handful of opinion pieces.07/31/2015 - 3:11pm
Andrew EisenHere's a fun fact: Only two of the authors of the "Gamers Are Dead" articles (of which there are about 12) were on the Game Journo Pros list.07/31/2015 - 3:10pm
Goth_SkunkNo! No! Of course not! Nothing wrong with that at all! Nevermind that those articles spawned a huge, almost year-long consumer revolt and culture war that no one in the industry can deny exists. :^)07/31/2015 - 3:10pm
Andrew EisenThere's also nothing wrong with publishing an opinion you know is going to be unpopular with some. So long as it's genuine, anyway.07/31/2015 - 3:08pm
Andrew EisenEh, could be laziness, lack of imagination, bandwagon hopping or maybe Alexander's article inspired them to publish their own takes. Nothing wrong with that.07/31/2015 - 3:06pm
Goth_SkunkIf laziness was indeed the reason other sites produced articles of a similar vein, the laziness must reach levels that would make a cat blush. How lazy does one have to be unable to stop and think "maybe this isn't a good idea...'07/31/2015 - 3:04pm
Andrew EisenThe Mary Sue article title I'm a bit more comfortable being called clickbait as it's a deliberate misdirection but it's done for humor's sake so I personally give such things a pass.07/31/2015 - 3:01pm
Andrew EisenI count six similar titles and two of the authors aren't even journalists, let alone game journalists. It doesn't reek of collusion, it reeks of laziness, if anything. A few others saw Alexander's piece and wrote their own.07/31/2015 - 3:00pm
Goth_Skunkfeed. Additionally, I'm baffled by the irony of someone named 'Infophile' taking a Mary Sue article seriously. Ignoring that I won't give that site a second of my time, that article headline is blatant clickbait and should be ignored on principle.07/31/2015 - 2:58pm
Goth_SkunkI agree with Benohawk: The title of the article meant that the article was worth ignoring. Alas, when 9 additional sites pop up with similarly titled articles of their own, it reeks of collusion and an attempt by the press at large to bite the hands that07/31/2015 - 2:56pm
Andrew EisenAh, okay.07/31/2015 - 2:46pm
benohawkI'm saying that the refrence in the article to the old title would need to be changed well the primary point of the article would be kept the same. Not something that should be an issue if the objective wasn't to be provocative.07/31/2015 - 2:41pm
Andrew EisenYou're saying the article should be altered to fit a different title. I want to know what title you find more appropriate for the copy as is.07/31/2015 - 2:34pm
benohawkIt would take a minor rewrite to the article, but I'd call it 'What is a Gamer' but go for the same point. you don't have to sell to jerks07/31/2015 - 2:33pm
Andrew EisenI still say "clickbait" is thrown around way too casually, to the point where it's completely meaningless. That aside, what alternate title would you suggest?07/31/2015 - 2:22pm
benohawkt was still delibrate clickait, something I would expect from a Gawker outlet, the article would of likely been much better recieved with a nicer title07/31/2015 - 2:18pm
Andrew EisenProvocative title to be sure but I didn't find it inaccurate or not reflective of its text.07/31/2015 - 2:12pm
benohawkGamasutra shouldn't of gotten clicks for the article until they had published under an accurate name instead of some pathetic clickbaiting07/31/2015 - 2:09pm
benohawkThe title of the article meant that the article was worth ignoring, not launching a massive campaign to try and end the site it was on.07/31/2015 - 2:08pm
Andrew EisenI will Ouija him my unceasing indignation!07/31/2015 - 1:59pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician