I think the problem is one of demand. It makes sense that recently released (last year or two) MMOs feel as though they are missing social components, because (maybe a generalization?) many players just don't want to be bothered. I think this is evident since a lot of, if not the majority, of content is not simply solo-able, but is designed from the beginning with that in mind. If the game is designed around being social, then it stands to reason that the majority of content would be designed to facilitate that. It's my personal opinion though, that a player shouldn't be able to solo the entire game. What's sad is that MMOs are designed specifically to allow just that, so that players can get to endgame easier. It's an MMO, and as such, it shouldn't have an endgame.

So I think I think it might just as much the players fault as it is the developers. A lot of gamers these days don't want to be social, they just want to kill things. MMOs are turning into first person shooters.

Community-driven aspects are in direct competition with convenience.

Convenience is not a curse word. Convenience makes mundane shit that doesn't need to be mundane, non-mundane.

Developers are struggling because inconvenience does happen to be a curse word. Player-driven economy? Inconvenient. Group-driven gameplay? Inconvenient. Player-made content? Hmm, no, not inconvenient, just shit.

Plus, sandbox equals freedom. Freedom equals gameplay variables. Gameplay variables equals designers struggling to balance the content accordingly. Failure to balance content accordingly leads to community taking advantage of the design flaws. Taking advantage of design flaws leads to content not being as challenging as intended. Content not being as challenging as intended leads to other measures taken to slow down the community from clearing the content too fast (grinding). Grinding leads to baw haw's. Baw haw's lead to cancelled subs. Cancelled subs lead to lost revenue. Lost revenue leads to insufficient funds to continue development.

etc.

Originally posted by Royalkin

I think the problem is one of demand. It makes sense that recently released (last year or two) MMOs feel as though they are missing social components, because (maybe a generalization?) many players just don't want to be bothered. I think this is evident since a lot of, if not the majority, of content is not simply solo-able, but is designed from the beginning with that in mind. If the game is designed around being social, then it stands to reason that the majority of content would be designed to facilitate that. It's my personal opinion though, that a player shouldn't be able to solo the entire game. What's sad is that MMOs are designed specifically to allow just that, so that players can get to endgame easier. It's an MMO, and as such, it shouldn't have an endgame.

So I think I think it might just as much the players fault as it is the developers. A lot of gamers these days don't want to be social, they just want to kill things. MMOs are turning into first person shooters.

 Yeah people clearly don't care about social features on the internet...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites

Facebook only has over 800 million users.

People enjoy social things on the internet.  This isn't opinion, it's fact.  As such, it stands to reason that people will enjoy social things in an MMORPG.

These social features shouldn't be like facebook, but they should be something that ties into and enhances the overall game experience.  Guilds are an example of such a feature, and they also seem to be the only one that all devs univerally include.  Can you imagine the outcry if a major MMORPG came out without guilds?

People like social features.

I agree with the OP. Modern games are going backwards, not forwards. Games need features other than leveling and PvP to keep everyone interested. I constantly find myself bored in games wishing there were features like the OP suggested. New MMORPG's should be increasing the features, not lessening them.

If people would stop paying for games that don't have these features then you'd see them start to show up in games. As it is now, MMO gamers are a bunch of junkies waiting for their next fix because they're so desperate for something to play they'll play anything.

Huh. 

Well, this message board has a lot of Tourettes sufferers then.

I think the fear of sandboxes have to to with todays kids and how they are brought up. When I was a kid we played with Lego/Meccano. At the age of ten we scavenged some stuff and said to our parents "we'll be back for dinner", then we went into the forest and built our treehouse. Two years later we built a barge who served as our pirate ship during the summer and so on. There were no pre-made playgrounds where I lived.

Look at how things are today. Todays parents are scared to death of little Timmy falling and brusing his knee, if that happens he needs an ambulance ride. Because of that ,every playground and every game needs to be checked and double checked and be carrying a stamp of approval from the authorities. "This See Saw has been tested and confirms to..." but only if it's used in this way.

In such an environment creativity and desire to create something on your own often dies. Even if it doesn't and people want to make something on their own they can't. Their whole life they've been conditioned to follow a flowchart so now they don't know how.

It'll get worse, trust me.

The thing about facebook is that it allows asynchronus interaction. In most cases MMORPGs demand synchronous interaction and most people do not like that.

All I'm seeing are a bunch of whines about my play style (sandbox) being superior to your play style (themepark).  Who do you think you are to judge one play style as superior to another?  I love PC gaming and hate console gaming, but I don't have the gall to consider one inferior to the other, it's merely different and doesn't fit my tastes.

I'm fairly certain the reason why people get upset about sandboxers jumping up and down in themepark topics is due to two reasons.  First and foremost is why are you in there in the first place?  Secondly is how you guys always talk in judgemental ways about themeparks, then prattle on about sandbox features as if our preferred play style and game have no merit what so ever.

Originally posted by precious328

 I still cannot believe AAA games shun such characteristics. They turn games from virtual worlds to gigantic co'op RPGs.

       I've been saying this for years! Dev's have taken the MMO out of the RPG and turned them into a hybrid mix of FPS and MMOG,, but I like your phrasing better,  "gigantic co'op RPG's..  This is why I'm not currently subbed to any MMO's at the moment,, and who knows If I ever will sub again ;/

Stalker Online is looking prtty promising so far. They have a US server coming out in the future, btu right now I feel like a soldier deep behind enemy lines playing the Russian Open Beta.

No the issue is that the only Sandbox game that is viable right now is Eve.  And Eve, while I love it, is about Finance and Spaceships.  How hard is it to make a game where I can conquer some LAND (key word), loot a body, and build a f****** static object in the world of my choosing? Wake me up when the developers start making games for the wolves, not the sheep.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

The social component (our team calls it 'the coffee' house') is one of three components of MMOs. I think there's too many that look at an MMO as just themepark and sandbox content, forgetting social. Each MMO is pretty much a combination of the three, although, as you point out, it doesn't seem that way lately.

How did RIFT or ToR "forget social"?   Both games created centralized, singular social hubs for their factions so that players would have one very clear social spot.  RIFT had convenient dungeon-finding, which creates all kinds of social connections (as long as you can always befriend those you run dungeons with, which was WOW's only fault)   Both games have guild systems (in RIFT's case a pretty beefy one) which encourage guilds to scoop up lots of members which inevitably causes socialization.

The OP proved his point. The themepark players are acting like this thread is the "F" word. There is nothing wrong with the Themepark games and having some structured gameplay. It can be a good tool to tell a specific story, but the original idea of the mmorpg was for people to create their own stories. I don't know why everyone is so up in arms about themepark games not having any sandbox themes in them, and why they strictly have to be seperate. You can have structure from the developers, and also player made content within the same game thats all the OP is saying. When it comes down to it "themepark" and "sandbox" are just labels; labels for different kinds of featuers within a game. Why can't multiple features be in one game? MMORPGs are supposed to be large anyways, and cater to as many people as possible for social effect. When it comes down to it, Thempark and Sandbox aren't different genres anyway, they are different opinions or niches. I think mmorpgs do need more freedom and features in order to make it something more than a massive co-op rpg, and it also needs some structure and developer help to to reign in people and to generate good player content.

Personally, I'm just hoping Archeage gets an NA publisher...

It sounds like the "F" word because of how Sandbox players act elitist towards everyone else... Unfortunately, that turns a lot of people off and now we don't have a good game to play.  I was one of those elitist jerks, and now I understand the error of my ways!  Just make me 1 land-based Sandbox MMO with FFA pvp and full (partial is cool) loot, oh and castles n' stuff.. I promise I'll never give you the carebear stare and I'll even randomly buy one of your themepark MMOs every once in a while.  

Please please please? Cherry on top?

Originally posted by injenu

It sounds like the "F" word because of how Sandbox players act elitist towards everyone else... Unfortunately, that turns a lot of people off and now we don't have a good game to play 

Please please please? Cherry on top?

I could swear most the hostile posts made on these topics are made from themepark lovers trying to bash anything they dont like. While most the sandbox users just ask for more features, more indepth play, better market/crafting, and few other things. That do not in any way destroy the fun in mmo's. I dont see why the big arguement causes people to fight. I just want a large virtual world, with tons of features, good fun pvp, worthy grouping, not being asked to do dailies, warzones, and raids for content, and just want more for what im payying for.

Dont see why anyone would want less when they are paying 15/month for it. Its like buying a sports car without tires, you have the hot new eye candy of a ride..........but no functionality.

I personaly dont think many here have played a sandbox or know of the features outside the WOW clones. Its not being harsh, i dont see why we cant have the best of both worlds.

Well, I think most of the people that are interested in Sandbox mechanics are generally the people who have been in the genre the longest. They remember the good old days, and they've seen the whole history and evolution of the mmorpg. Anyone who's been around longer is going to feel a sense of entitlement. They may have a better scope on the whole idea, who knows. That definateley doesn't mean they should be condesending. I personally want more freedom in my games I play, because I feel it makes a bigger, better, and more fun game. That's just my opinion. I've played many themepark games in my day too though.

Originally posted by Caldrin

Sadly AAA companies are after the big money, and maknig WoW clones seems to be the way to do it at the moment.

 

People who want anything different have to put their faith in Indie companies.. and sadly they are usually low budget and full of bugs..

Unfortunately they have failed at every turn to make a WoW clone.  They manage to keep 100k players or so and call it a success.  Ultima Online back in it's day, as well as SGW had upwards to 300k subscriptions.  Back then, that's similar to WoW numbers if you scale it up based on market size.  These companies continue to think that it's just not worth the risk, when I feel that it shouldn't be hard at all to attract 100k subscriptions for a well done sandbox.  EVE has managed to do it in a less desired sci-fi setting, and they weren't considered a AAA developer.. and still may not be for that matter.

Some of you fail to understand the OP.  It's something that most people do because they are too fixed on the word sandbox and what they think it means.  Sandbox in one word means this, Opportunity.  It gives you the opportunity to do what you want.  What the OP is saying is that there is nothing wrong with providing the players opportunity to do something.  If Blizzard decided to add a housing instance in certain areas around their universe, they would be praised for it.  So many people would proclaim Blizzard as geniuses.  Yet, when people like myself suggest adding it in some form to a game, I get insulted and shunned.  How would adding housing hurt a game?  It's a legitimate time sink, it also opens up the opportunity for players to craft and sell furniture with a new profession.  Some of you would be amazed wheat a creative player could do while designing their home. 

Why not add some territory control?  It doesn't have to negatively affect players who do not want to participate in it.  Those areas can be secluded to a point, and people will adjust if they aren't.  Players can still partake in arena PvP, instanced dungeons and small skirmishes around PvP hotspots.  The developers would just be giving reason to attack the other faction instead of being able to just because it's hardcoded in the system.  You could add faction wide bonuses for holding a certain amount of points.  You could add guild bonuses for a guild holding a point.  How could this be a bad thing as long as it's not intrusive to the casual player who isn't interested?

Why can't developers throw some inns and taverns into cities and add buff bonuses for going in and staying for a few minutes?  How would that affect the game in a negative manner?  It would bring people together, you'd have people dancing around and talking to each other.  You'd have NPC's selling ale and mead, players throwing money away to drink and see the affects of it.  Perhaps even giving them a bonus to experience gained for an hour if you stay in there for a few minutes.  It's not something that is forced on you by any means, but if you wish to partkae, there are reasons other than just being social to make you want to do it.

Why can't you add interesting locations to the map that have no real reason to be explored other than the fact that it's unknown and could be cool?  Not everything has to be tied to a quest.  On the same note, sandboxes can have quests too similar to something like Skyrim.  If you're not interested in collecting things or adventuring, no one is forcing you.  However, the developers would just be adding an opportunity to the players to do so if they wished.

Why can't players throw down their own shops in the open world?  You can still have auction houses, the price will be a little more expensive, but you can still travel to that players house for a discount.  Not to mention, along the way, you can find other really good shops where players decided that they didn't want to be listed on the auction house.  Maybe it's a guild that likes to show off what they have.  How would that hurt the game?  Fact is, it wouldn't.

I think so many people are so defensive about their game that they refuse any idea at all without even thinking about it because they feel it is an attack on the quality of that game.  This is what I've been trying to get through to people for a while now.  The simple addition of a non-intrusive system should not alter your game experience in your beloved game.  It will however make other players more interested due to the addition of these systems.  If you don't like it, don't do it.  But refusing the opportunity for others to enjoy themselves more is ignorant in my opinion and only hurts the developers and the current players of that game.  Why wouldn't you want more players in your game?  It really doesn't make any sense if you think about it.  And as long as that added system isn't causing big issues and it fits what the game is about, why not? 

It's like taking your car to a dealer and they tell you that you're their 100,000th customer and they offer you a free keyless entry system.  You turn around and tell them no, you like your car the way it is.  Nevermind that you don't have a keyless entry system and it's actually a very useful thing to have.

Originally posted by injenu

It sounds like the "F" word because of how Sandbox players act elitist towards everyone else... Unfortunately, that turns a lot of people off and now we don't have a good game to play.  I was one of those elitist jerks, and now I understand the error of my ways!  Just make me 1 land-based Sandbox MMO with FFA pvp and full (partial is cool) loot, oh and castles n' stuff.. I promise I'll never give you the carebear stare and I'll even randomly buy one of your themepark MMOs every once in a while.  

Please please please? Cherry on top?

I assume you've been playing Darkfall since release and have supported it the entire time, right?

..if not because it sounds like exactly what you want, then at least to show developers there's a viable market for the game type.