By your definition, Runescape is a sandbox.  Might want to get on that.

To OP:

Might wanne remove the free trials from darkfall..

This ain't possible anymore..

no client fee anymore tho.. but they removed the trials aswell..

So sub based only

Are we only includeing released games or forthcoming games as in near Alpha testing as in
The Repopulation which when released will be one of the biggest Sandbox's ever ?

And while we are at Embers of Caerus,Pathfinder,Ether Fields,Origins of Malu

Thanks for the input.

@Khaeros: Yes, I think you're right, I will add Runescape. Thanks.

@Snoepie: Thanks for the info. I'll update the entry soon.

@Darker 70: I list games that are playable by the general public, i.e. games that are either released or in open testing. The purpose of this list is to serve as reference for people wanting to play a sandbox MMORPG, little use to list games that can't be played because they're still in development or closed testing.

Edit: Minor update to the OP:

• Changed Darkfall's payment information to "Subscription, free client, no free trial"
• Changed Xsyon's payment info to "Subscription, commercial client, no free trial". Trial info was missing for Xsyon.

---

Originally posted by Larsa
Thanks for the input.

@Khaeros: Yes, I think you're right, I will add Runescape. Thanks.

@Snoepie: Thanks for the info. I'll update the entry soon.

@Darker 70: I list games that are playable by the general public, i.e. games that are either released or in open testing. The purpose of this list is to serve as reference for people wanting to play a sandbox MMORPG, little use to list games that can't be played because they're still in development or closed testing.

---

Fair enough was unsure from initial post

Would it be possible to take a composite and rate the games according to people's consensus?  I've only played EVE of your list but I'm curious about some of the others.  Notably, Perpetuum.

Also, really quickly, I think Atlantica Online might qualify to add to your list.  It's turn-based and strategy oriented but it's pretty fun and the economy and political system are entirely free-form and player-driven.

---

Originally posted by BrentCheeks
Would it be possible to take a composite and rate the games according to people's consensus?  I've only played EVE of your list but I'm curious about some of the others.  Notably, Perpetuum.

---

I was in early Beta one thing if u played Eve like i did,you will feel very comfortable with the UI design and overall feel to the game.

Great list!

Originally posted by BrentCheeks

Would it be possible to ... rate the games according to people's consensus?  ...

Uh, Brent, awfully sorry, but I don't think that would benefit this thread. Different people like different things and because they're people there's practically no chance for a consensus. :)

The things listed about each game are factual information and nothing else. I have taken care to be as unbiased as I can in this thread. To introduce some sort of ranking or score now would throw that policy out of the water. I'd rather not go that way. Sorry.

If its factual, Would mind adding a population estimate?

Eg; 

Small(less than 1000)

Medium(less than 50,000)

Huge(more than 100,000) 

? 

Would help to not go to dead Sandboxes :/

A population estimate might also be an indication of the popularity so in some small way I can have the report card I hoped for.

Originally posted by mtbsickrider

If its factual, Would mind adding a population estimate?

 

Eg; 

 

Small(less than 1000)

Medium(less than 50,000)

Huge(more than 100,000) 

 

? 

 

Would help to not go to dead Sandboxes :/

The numbers would be meaningless for most sandbox games, especially the more social ones. For example, Puzzle Pirates has about 34k subs, but it has an extremely active community and several very populated areas. ATITD is another example of the same but with maybe 5k or so subs.

That being said, for almost all of those games, the population information would be no more than a guess.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

...

... That being said, for almost all of those games, the population information would be no more than a guess.

I agree with Loktofeit here.

You guys are right, it's factual information - and as I said, I'm happy to put factual information on the list. But there's just no way to get comparable numbers about all the games on the list. Only the companies know and they won't tell us. It's not even clear what "population" is - Number of subscribers? Number of accounts? Number of characters created? Number of players at your prime time? Number of players at my prime time?

Here's an example how factual information can turn into mis-information. When I initially made the list I had planned to include information about PvP for each game, whether it has PvP, what type of PvP and so on. And while I was doing that I realised that even factual information can be misleading. For example the entries for Darkfall and Haven & Hearth and Wurm (on the PvP servers) would all read "FFA PvP with full loot" and still this would be mis-information, because in Darkfall PvP happens very frequently while in WURM or Haven & Hearth PvP can happen, but happens on rare occasions only.

Putting them all into the "FFA PvP with full loot" category would make readers think about games like WURM or H&H as PvP-heavy - but they're not. That would be an example of factual information that mis-informs the reader.

Updated the OP.

• As discussed last week I added Runescape to the game list. From the feature list on their website it ticks most of the boxes. Disclaimer: I didn't play the game.
• Went through the information provided under payment model because it was a bit of a mess to get all the different payment models of the games into one system.

This needs to be stickied or like posted on its own webpage.

I would say asheron's call is as close as any a handful on your list.

I personally think it is kind of a hybrid and when if the best games all time but with some you have on your list I don't see any reason it shouldn't make it.

Darkfall heavily used AC Darktide server's idea in making DF and I have palyed both games for long periods of time.

Originally posted by stux

 

I would say asheron's call is as close as any a handful on your list. ...

Thanks for the suggestion.

I know little about how AC is these days but have never considered it as sandbox in any way. I believe there are rather few sandbox features in AC. Don't they even have a quest-based level path these days? I believe it's also very combat-centric and loot-driven.

I may well be wrong, as said, I know little about the game. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps look at the sandbox feature list in the OP, if a game has almost all of these features I set it on the list, if not then not. :)

---

Originally posted by Suraknar

---

Originally posted by GeezerGamer  

---

Originally posted by Suraknar

---

Originally posted by GeezerGamer Perpetuum is a sandbox...It's an EVE clone. Anarchy Online is a hybrid. It has a lot of features from both TPs and SBs As far as defining a TP vs SB. It's simple, At endgame, a Sandbox's focus is on building a world. A player's relative power comes from that which he does that persists in the virtual world. In a Theme-park, the world is fully established, you can only play in it and have very little influence over it. So player's relative power comes from building his own character.

---

So in other words, TP is a Guided Experience, where the player has no decision to make in relation to the world, and SB is an Open Ended experience where the player makes decisions in relation to the world. Both could have Housing in reality both could share a number of other features.    

---

I tend to look at it as more of the focus of the game rather than absolutes, but pretty much in a Theme-park the experience is kinda like this: "OK, here's the world, you are welcome to play in it, but you can't change anything." The sandbox, does allow you to make changes in the world and so the world itself has less to offer in terms of what to do. You kinda make that happen for yourself and with others.   Focus: Sandbox=World, Theme-Park=Character.

---

I will agree with that as well, yes absolutelly! This is the "hand on" feeling that one gets from playing one or another type. I may on the other hand seem to talk in an "absolutes" fashion simply because the aim here was to find a proper definition that everyone can agree upon, and since after much much discussion for years in thes forums we still (as expressed in the OP), seem to not be able to have a clear definition of what a Sandbox MMO is, and I find that surprising personally because I think, converselly to the statements made abouyt a definition, it is simple and clear...

---

I'm not sure I follow that you all agree. Being able to shape the world around you and your character(entity) is a very hardline definition of sandbox that I think very few games (much less than listed here) offer. Crafting items (Eve, SWG, ...) for others as a means of progression is fine, but it has little effect on the world. Building a tavern anywhere has some effect on the world (how much is debatable) but UO still had levels and skills. You couldn't venture into the most dangerous areas and survive (if you could even get there) and that really doesn't help you progress if you did. EQ (pre-god), Vanguard and several other games have had limited or no quest paths required to follow, you went to an area and killed mobs to level. A dev putting mobs of the same level in the close proximity doesn't "force" you to follow their path. Most games offer multiple locations to find mobs to kill of your level, lower or higher level. Removing levels(or skill based systems) from the game completely I feel would remove it's classification as an RPG as you couldn't improve.

Haven and Hearth, Wurm and Horizons (Istaria) are probably games I feel are closest to my definition of MMORPG Sandboxes (although the PVP aspect of H&H turned me off). I haven't tried all of the games here but many of them.

---

• Character development that can be customised via skills and/or customisations of class roles, not a class system where every level 50 warrior has the exact same skills and attributes
• Non-linear character development where characters are not limited to developer-defined roles, for example: free skill trees or multi-classing of characters

---

  While these are idealistic goals for a game, how many people really choose less capable builds. Some like to explore and try various options, but usually their main character has only slight variation from other similarly powerful characters. If one of the explorers finds a "better" build (and tells others) it isn't long before flocks of people try it (if you can change).