Um...there's a really good sandbox MMO out there bros. Maybe the big 'ol banner ad on the front page of MMORPG.com wasn't obvious enough.
EVE Online.
Try it. It's kinda like the first time I watched The Matrix I was like: "Wtf? I don't get this." Then the 2nd or 3rd time it makes sense and becomes one of the best things that ever happened to you.
So I'm sitting here watching TV and I started to think about Skyrim, and how much I love the game. I've never actually played a Sandbox MMO but I'm growing in love with the whole Sandbox style that Skyrim offers. Then I thought, why aren't there any good Sandbox MMOs? (some say Darkfall is good, but I've heard both sides) And I thought about it somemore, and then I realized this. Maybe the reason that Sandbox MMOs don't stick is because even with a Sandbox MMO you still cannot explore the entire world, you're still stuck to ceritan zones or areas. Take Skyrim for example. The Monstor's / Humonoids scale to your level. You can literally explore every inch of the world and still be able to kill something. If you go to the farthest north point, or the farthest south point, it's all the same. Could this possibly be why Sandbox MMOs do not stick? Or is there some other aspect that I'm clearly not thinking of.
Thanks all, I cannot wait to hear your responses.
Talint
nah, I think you are thinking about it in the wrong way.
It doesn't matter whether you can explore everything NOW but that at some point you are able to explore it.
having content that is above the player at any given time is a good thing.
Sandbox mmo's do work. they aren't popular because many people who play mmo's want a more guided experience. Especially those who are in love with a more themepark way of doing things.
Heck, I recall a player recently in Lord of the Rings Online who was confused because he wasn't directly sent to the next quest hub. Now, LOTRO guides people to other quest hubs but it's not always as pronounced as say Rift. The suggestion that he just follow the road was accepted but he didn't like it that he was left in confusion.
And that's Lord of the Rings!
What's the average plaeyr going to do when they are just plopped in a world?
Of course, the rebuttal to that is "look at all the people who love the elder scrolls games, that's proof that people want a sandbox".
To this I say "did one ever consider that the same demographic that plays sandbox single player games isn't interested in mmo's? Especially because mmo's are, for the most part, about something else?
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
It's almost impossible to design a sandbox MMO where one's freedom finishes when it limits someone else's freedom.
city guards.
FIXED.
Even you don't believe that, hehe.
It just incredible hard, specially if you take in to consideration the ability to destroy propriety and persistant worlds.
A true sandbox (with ffa pvp and all that) is incredibly hard to envision, maybe a Co-Op Sandbox but then again most of the sandbox fans would hate co-op.
Sandbox MMO can work. But in these days a sandbox MMO will need themepark content in addition to it(quests or content like that) to sell well. FFA PVP is not a great seller, because in most incarnations its not popular. So thats best left out if the devs want to make it a popular game.
But the most difficult problem is that a sandbox MMO has usually way more features then a themepark MMO. No matter how you envision a sandbox MMO for yourself. More features to get right and test and polish, means it takes more time to produce. And we all have seen so far that devs rarely get the time. Its just a lot more work to create a sandbox MMO with all the promised features polished and relatively bugfree.
The reason why they dont sell well atm, is because they are released with just a few of the promised features completed and loads of bugs. Players dont sub anymore for promises that might be kept in the future.
No one dedicates a serious budget to their development.
And for some reason people seem to think that a Sandbox games just HAS to have FFA full loot PVP.
As much fun as that is for some of us, it's a sure-fire way to make sure that a game will never have enough subs to survive.
That..and developers keep forgetting to put enough sand in the box.
You said it all. The arguments against limiting what players can do to each other and where because limitations of any kind make the game 'not a sandbox' fire up the minute a game is announced. Then people act surprised when a handful of dedicated asshats stomp all over the population and drive everyone out.
Ultima Online worked, and is still up and running, as are others, I am not a fan of their current skill system, but their are other ways to play different periods of the game and rule sets...
Sandboxes are fine, they have problems, just like themeparks do, you just have to figure out the best way to do things, as with any MMO, the big problem is, like you cite, DF...It is AA at best, and some would call it a A MMO...There is no new AAA sandbox, so people poke at the cruddy indie titles that shouldn't of been released in their crappy state...Then they compare them to a game that spent 10 times the money or more, and think thats a good comparisson.
Themeparks are starting to add more sandbox stuff in the dev cycle now, so it will become more common to see some of the features that some enjoy in a sandbox. I am sure their will be some sandbox games, but the majority will be some type of hybrid.
UO became popular because it had no competition other than Meridian 59 at the time. There was an untapped market and UO hit that spot. Nothing less. It's not a good measurement of how sandbox games with FFA PvP is the biggest draw.
The only thing holding sandbox games back are the niche group of players that insist on having full loot pvp in every sandbox game that comes out. They are a niche group within a gamestyle that has the potential to grow exponentially big. They are the only ones holding this genre back
Sandbox features are very sought after. FFA PvP not so much
Um...there's a really good sandbox MMO out there bros. Maybe the big 'ol banner ad on the front page of MMORPG.com wasn't obvious enough. EVE Online. Try it. It's kinda like the first time I watched The Matrix I was like: "Wtf? I don't get this." Then the 2nd or 3rd time it makes sense and becomes one of the best things that ever happened to you.
Disagree...I've tried it several times...just not my cup of tea
No one dedicates a serious budget to their development.
And for some reason people seem to think that a Sandbox games just HAS to have FFA full loot PVP.
As much fun as that is for some of us, it's a sure-fire way to make sure that a game will never have enough subs to survive.
That..and developers keep forgetting to put enough sand in the box.
You said it all. The arguments against limiting what players can do to each other and where because limitations of any kind make the game 'not a sandbox' fire up the minute a game is announced. Then people act surprised when a handful of dedicated asshats stomp all over the population and drive everyone out.
LOL....So very true
Kind of what i meant, putting in limiting factors is incredibly hard.
People demand freedom, but if you're only free while removing someone elses freedom...how is that fun for other people?
So I'm sitting here watching TV and I started to think about Skyrim, and how much I love the game. I've never actually played a Sandbox MMO but I'm growing in love with the whole Sandbox style that Skyrim offers. Then I thought, why aren't there any good Sandbox MMOs? (some say Darkfall is good, but I've heard both sides) And I thought about it somemore, and then I realized this. Maybe the reason that Sandbox MMOs don't stick is because even with a Sandbox MMO you still cannot explore the entire world, you're still stuck to ceritan zones or areas. Take Skyrim for example. The Monstor's / Humonoids scale to your level. You can literally explore every inch of the world and still be able to kill something. If you go to the farthest north point, or the farthest south point, it's all the same. Could this possibly be why Sandbox MMOs do not stick? Or is there some other aspect that I'm clearly not thinking of.
Thanks all, I cannot wait to hear your responses.
Talint
nah, I think you are thinking about it in the wrong way.
It doesn't matter whether you can explore everything NOW but that at some point you are able to explore it.
having content that is above the player at any given time is a good thing.
Sandbox mmo's do work. they aren't popular because many people who play mmo's want a more guided experience. Especially those who are in love with a more themepark way of doing things.
Heck, I recall a player recently in Lord of the Rings Online who was confused because he wasn't directly sent to the next quest hub. Now, LOTRO guides people to other quest hubs but it's not always as pronounced as say Rift. The suggestion that he just follow the road was accepted but he didn't like it that he was left in confusion.
And that's Lord of the Rings!
What's the average plaeyr going to do when they are just plopped in a world?
Of course, the rebuttal to that is "look at all the people who love the elder scrolls games, that's proof that people want a sandbox".
To this I say "did one ever consider that the same demographic that plays sandbox single player games isn't interested in mmo's? Especially because mmo's are, for the most part, about something else?
So I'm sitting here watching TV and I started to think about Skyrim, and how much I love the game. I've never actually played a Sandbox MMO but I'm growing in love with the whole Sandbox style that Skyrim offers. Then I thought, why aren't there any good Sandbox MMOs? (some say Darkfall is good, but I've heard both sides) And I thought about it somemore, and then I realized this. Maybe the reason that Sandbox MMOs don't stick is because even with a Sandbox MMO you still cannot explore the entire world, you're still stuck to ceritan zones or areas. Take Skyrim for example. The Monstor's / Humonoids scale to your level. You can literally explore every inch of the world and still be able to kill something. If you go to the farthest north point, or the farthest south point, it's all the same. Could this possibly be why Sandbox MMOs do not stick? Or is there some other aspect that I'm clearly not thinking of.
Ultima Online worked, and is still up and running, as are others, I am not a fan of their current skill system, but their are other ways to play different periods of the game and rule sets...
Sandboxes are fine, they have problems, just like themeparks do, you just have to figure out the best way to do things, as with any MMO, the big problem is, like you cite, DF...It is AA at best, and some would call it a A MMO...There is no new AAA sandbox, so people poke at the cruddy indie titles that shouldn't of been released in their crappy state...Then they compare them to a game that spent 10 times the money or more, and think thats a good comparisson.
Themeparks are starting to add more sandbox stuff in the dev cycle now, so it will become more common to see some of the features that some enjoy in a sandbox. I am sure their will be some sandbox games, but the majority will be some type of hybrid.
UO became popular because it had no competition other than Meridian 59 at the time. There was an untapped market and UO hit that spot. Nothing less. It's not a good measurement of how sandbox games with FFA PvP is the biggest draw.
The only thing holding sandbox games back are the niche group of players that insist on having full loot pvp in every sandbox game that comes out. They are a niche group within a gamestyle that has the potential to grow exponentially big. They are the only ones holding this genre back
Sandbox features are very sought after. FFA PvP not so much
This....FFA PvP prevents many from using the very sandbox features they joined the game to experience...SWG had a good PvP system...not perfect but good
So I'm sitting here watching TV and I started to think about Skyrim, and how much I love the game. I've never actually played a Sandbox MMO but I'm growing in love with the whole Sandbox style that Skyrim offers. Then I thought, why aren't there any good Sandbox MMOs? (some say Darkfall is good, but I've heard both sides) And I thought about it somemore, and then I realized this. Maybe the reason that Sandbox MMOs don't stick is because even with a Sandbox MMO you still cannot explore the entire world, you're still stuck to ceritan zones or areas. Take Skyrim for example. The Monstor's / Humonoids scale to your level. You can literally explore every inch of the world and still be able to kill something. If you go to the farthest north point, or the farthest south point, it's all the same. Could this possibly be why Sandbox MMOs do not stick? Or is there some other aspect that I'm clearly not thinking of.
Thanks all, I cannot wait to hear your responses.
Talint
nah, I think you are thinking about it in the wrong way.
It doesn't matter whether you can explore everything NOW but that at some point you are able to explore it.
having content that is above the player at any given time is a good thing.
Sandbox mmo's do work. they aren't popular because many people who play mmo's want a more guided experience. Especially those who are in love with a more themepark way of doing things.
Heck, I recall a player recently in Lord of the Rings Online who was confused because he wasn't directly sent to the next quest hub. Now, LOTRO guides people to other quest hubs but it's not always as pronounced as say Rift. The suggestion that he just follow the road was accepted but he didn't like it that he was left in confusion.
And that's Lord of the Rings!
What's the average plaeyr going to do when they are just plopped in a world?
Of course, the rebuttal to that is "look at all the people who love the elder scrolls games, that's proof that people want a sandbox".
To this I say "did one ever consider that the same demographic that plays sandbox single player games isn't interested in mmo's? Especially because mmo's are, for the most part, about something else?
I wonder if he missed a quest then, because games like LOTRO usually send players to (one of )the next questhubs to continue with the story. Or the main story arc will lead them there. These games are designed like that. So I agree with that player that you can expect the game to send you in the right direction. Simply because it worked like up to that point. Still its possible that he simply missed it somewhere, there are players that dont seem to be able to find their own ass.
However, in a sandbox MMO its clear from the start whether you will be sent to questhubs (if there are any at all). Still, that doesnt mean that a sandbox nowadays doesnt need a good ingame help database or a very good tutorial that sends you to npcs that explain about certain features. Those take nothing away from the freedom within the game (provided you can skip the tutorial), but everything with making the player familiar with the virtual world that the devs had in mind.
It has all to do with the way devs describe their game and what expectations it makes with the players.
I would never play a sandbox MMO anymore that lacks ingame documentation or good tutorials. It pisses me off now if I have to forumdive for information. Fallen Earth for example shows a lot of information ingame. Not that it is a sandbox MMO (yet or will be ever), but its a good addition imo.
Sandbox MMOs usually let players ruin other players' fun.
(The exploration bit the OP mentions is sort of an extension of this.)
Although as an aside, I feel like Skyrim would work better with area-based difficulty. Free-roam within large areas, but with clear 'easy', 'medium', and 'hard' difficulties to specific parts of the game world.
FFA PvP is what lets players ruin each others fun.
FFA PvP is not a requisite of a sandbox MMO.
That's half the problem of why sandbox MMOs are considered a broken concept, because everyone lumps that niche mechanic in with it.
...
As for Skyrim, there are areas in the game that are always easier or always harder. But realize that many areas level lock the first time you visit to give a feeling of consistency in the world.
Yeah, definitely agree with FFA PVP not being a requirement. In fact the sandbox-ish MMO I've spent the most time in was Haven & Hearth, which had basically no PVP at all and was mostly just about surviving a wilderness. (It actually had non-consentual full-loot PVP but I literally never saw it happen once in my ~2 months playing the game.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
They don't work because with the exception of SWG,, nobody has made a good sandbox. I also think it has alot to do with the new generation of players, they love the "hold me by the hand" theme park.
This....FFA PvP prevents many from using the very sandbox features they joined the game to experience...SWG had a good PvP system...not perfect but good
People who join a sandbox to build sandcastles don't usually like it when others destroy the castles, usually even before they are finished. Very few people find it fun to constantly rebuild the same thing over and over.
Like many ppl have said I believe lack of budget tbh, FFA PVP aside which is NOT needed but would be nice in some consentual form ( enter a siege field etc.. ), Mortal Online and Darkfall just fall short of expectation, lack of budge, proper management, and experience.
That is the sad reality, if someone like blizzard builds a sandbox its not a guarantee that would be a success but it would be polished, good design and would deliver on the features.
Sandbox proponents seem to sabotage their own preferences because so many take the super-elitist approach of "if it's not 100% sandbox then it's not sandbox". As sandbox fans we need to accept that any MMO will be a blend of the two and it's enough for one to be sandbox-y in majority without having to be so in totality to be a great sandbox game.
Having quests does not preclude a game from being a sandbox so long as those quests do not exhibit a large degree of artificial railing (level required / hub-to-hub chaining). In WoW, the theme-park way, I can't get quest D until I am level N and have done quest A followed by B followed by C. In EVE, the sanbox way, I can get a mission if I am liked by a corp (or my corp is liked, or liked by their faction) and I can become liked by a corp regardless of my power level or what specific other missions I've done before. Then I can accept a L4 mission even if I don't have anywhere the skills or ship to actually have a hope in hell of completing it.
This is why Skyrim is mostly a sandbox. Yes, it has tons of quests and even quest chains, but access to them is vastly independent of other quests you've done or of your level. Once the starter part is done you can go to whatever town and take on quests or you can go off the rails and just hunt things in the wild, explore dungeons without having the quest and so on. You still get viable advancement. Most importantly you are not artificially locked out of areas until you've done X or got to level Y (compare for example to Diablo or Final Fantasy games)
A sandbox does not need to have FFA PvP (or even any PvP) because a sandbox does not have to be completely and utterly unlimited in each and every respect. In the same way it doesn't need to have non-instanced player built housing, instanced housing can be great (EQ2 did a decent job of this in an otherwise non-sandbox game).
Like many ppl have said I believe lack of budget tbh, FFA PVP aside which is NOT needed but would be nice in some consentual form ( enter a siege field etc.. ), Mortal Online and Darkfall just fall short of expectation, lack of budge, proper management, and experience.
That is the sad reality, if someone like blizzard builds a sandbox its not a guarantee that would be a success but it would be polished, good design and would deliver on the features.
The lack of budget and catering to a niche group of PvP'ers kind of goes hand in hand. As much as you may like PvP you can't have it both ways. Either FFA PvP or a big budget tripple A title people will actually play.
This....FFA PvP prevents many from using the very sandbox features they joined the game to experience...SWG had a good PvP system...not perfect but good
People who join a sandbox to build sandcastles don't usually like it when others destroy the castles, usually even before they are finished. Very few people find it fun to constantly rebuild the same thing over and over.
Yes...which is exactly the point I made in my post. Glad you agree.
Like many ppl have said I believe lack of budget tbh, FFA PVP aside which is NOT needed but would be nice in some consentual form ( enter a siege field etc.. ), Mortal Online and Darkfall just fall short of expectation, lack of budge, proper management, and experience.
That is the sad reality, if someone like blizzard builds a sandbox its not a guarantee that would be a success but it would be polished, good design and would deliver on the features.
The lack of budget and catering to a niche group of PvP'ers kind of goes hand in hand. As much as you may like PvP you can't have it both ways. Either FFA PvP or a big budget tripple A title people will actually play.
He didn't talk about FFA PvP, he was talking about consentual PvP.
PvP in general is not a niche market. Not even close. It also doesn't necessarily involve player killing, all PvP stands for is player vs. player game mechanics, which many games have in other forms. The primary PvP going on in EVE, for example, is economic PvP, even though the game DOES have FFA PvP and is still quite popular and successful.
A lack of any type of interesting PvP (metagamer gear and stat races are excluded) is a surefire way to cut your prospective player numbers in half. Please stop spreading the complete misinformation that PvP is a small niche that nobody plays. Except for cooperative PvE MMOs, there are very few games where the primary mode of playing is not a player vs. player system.
You have to realize that even in EVE there is a huge segment of players who choose to opt out of PvP completely or almost completely. Many players never set foot outside HiSec and many others live in null/WHs in the protected space of a corp/alliance where they mine / rat without engaging in almost any PvP. EVE is unique as a FFA PvP game in this respect because it provides both a huge amount of content in almost-safe space and the ability to own and defend space providing a relatively safe haven for your allies.
Edit:
And yes, I realize that even HiSec is never 100% safe, but for all intents and purposes it is nearly so to an acceptable degree.
Also, a good example of the reaction of many players to the prospect of PvP is watching how many non-PvP corps will just go idle and put their gameplay on hold for a week or two if someone wardecs them.
Sandboxes are like the old west; lawless and hard to control. You get a lot of people who complain about every little thing, and suddenly want things 'ballanced' because they feel their playstyle is being punished or abused. Then if the devs stick to their guns and tell them that they have the same opportunities as everyone else and they are just going to have to deal with it they throw fits all over the forum and drive potential players off in droves. Worse yet the devs decide to make drastic changes to 'save' the game... *cough* NGE *cough*... and completely alienate the fan base they had.
You have to realize that even in EVE there is a huge segment of players who choose to opt out of PvP completely or almost completely. Many players never set foot outside HiSec and many others live in null/WHs in the protected space of a corp/alliance where they mine / rat without engaging in almost any PvP. EVE is unique as a FFA PvP game in this respect because it provides both a huge amount of content in almost-safe space and the ability to own and defend space providing a relatively safe haven for your allies.
Edit:
And yes, I realize that even HiSec is never 100% safe, but for all intents and purposes it is nearly so to an acceptable degree.
Also, a good example of the reaction of many players to the prospect of PvP is watching how many non-PvP corps will just go idle and put their gameplay on hold for a week or two if someone wardecs them.
The corporations and individuals who aren't getting involved with the wardecs and ship fights, and those that stay in hisec, are still participating in a PvP of sorts. It's economic PvP, where they try to earn relatively large amounts of ISK when compared to their fellow players.
Very few people would play EVE on a subscription basis if all they wanted to do was mine and run missions as a single player or in a small cooperative group. That is the realm of single-player games, and is not EVE's forte at all. Please don't pretend that the majority of EVE's playerbase are timid antisocial grinders. It isn't the truth at all.
EDIT: All functional sandboxes (and even most of the disfunctional ones) have zones that are relatively safe. There aren't thousands of complaints from people getting killed and looted within these safe zones. The complaints are all about them leaving the safe zones, and expecting to be able to find something to do there other than be someone's prey. Most of the complaints actually arise from a lack of imagination, rather than actual misbehavior on the part of a veteran player. The players are just wandering around in unsafe areas without a purpose, and that is sure to get them killed.
More people that don't belong in an MMORPG, let alone a FFA sandbox.
Comments
EVE Online.
Try it. It's kinda like the first time I watched The Matrix I was like: "Wtf? I don't get this." Then the 2nd or 3rd time it makes sense and becomes one of the best things that ever happened to you.
nah, I think you are thinking about it in the wrong way.
It doesn't matter whether you can explore everything NOW but that at some point you are able to explore it.
having content that is above the player at any given time is a good thing.
Sandbox mmo's do work. they aren't popular because many people who play mmo's want a more guided experience. Especially those who are in love with a more themepark way of doing things.
Heck, I recall a player recently in Lord of the Rings Online who was confused because he wasn't directly sent to the next quest hub. Now, LOTRO guides people to other quest hubs but it's not always as pronounced as say Rift. The suggestion that he just follow the road was accepted but he didn't like it that he was left in confusion.
And that's Lord of the Rings!
What's the average plaeyr going to do when they are just plopped in a world?
Of course, the rebuttal to that is "look at all the people who love the elder scrolls games, that's proof that people want a sandbox".
To this I say "did one ever consider that the same demographic that plays sandbox single player games isn't interested in mmo's? Especially because mmo's are, for the most part, about something else?
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
True sandboxes are incredible hard to make.
It's almost impossible to design a sandbox MMO where one's freedom finishes when it limits someone else's freedom.
Even you don't believe that, hehe.
It just incredible hard, specially if you take in to consideration the ability to destroy propriety and persistant worlds.
A true sandbox (with ffa pvp and all that) is incredibly hard to envision, maybe a Co-Op Sandbox but then again most of the sandbox fans would hate co-op.
Sandbox MMO can work. But in these days a sandbox MMO will need themepark content in addition to it(quests or content like that) to sell well. FFA PVP is not a great seller, because in most incarnations its not popular. So thats best left out if the devs want to make it a popular game.
But the most difficult problem is that a sandbox MMO has usually way more features then a themepark MMO. No matter how you envision a sandbox MMO for yourself. More features to get right and test and polish, means it takes more time to produce. And we all have seen so far that devs rarely get the time. Its just a lot more work to create a sandbox MMO with all the promised features polished and relatively bugfree.
The reason why they dont sell well atm, is because they are released with just a few of the promised features completed and loads of bugs. Players dont sub anymore for promises that might be kept in the future.
LOL....So very true
UO became popular because it had no competition other than Meridian 59 at the time. There was an untapped market and UO hit that spot. Nothing less. It's not a good measurement of how sandbox games with FFA PvP is the biggest draw.
The only thing holding sandbox games back are the niche group of players that insist on having full loot pvp in every sandbox game that comes out. They are a niche group within a gamestyle that has the potential to grow exponentially big. They are the only ones holding this genre back
Sandbox features are very sought after. FFA PvP not so much
Disagree...I've tried it several times...just not my cup of tea
Kind of what i meant, putting in limiting factors is incredibly hard.
People demand freedom, but if you're only free while removing someone elses freedom...how is that fun for other people?
Agreed
2 words: EVE Online
And it does work.
This....FFA PvP prevents many from using the very sandbox features they joined the game to experience...SWG had a good PvP system...not perfect but good
I wonder if he missed a quest then, because games like LOTRO usually send players to (one of )the next questhubs to continue with the story. Or the main story arc will lead them there. These games are designed like that. So I agree with that player that you can expect the game to send you in the right direction. Simply because it worked like up to that point. Still its possible that he simply missed it somewhere, there are players that dont seem to be able to find their own ass.
However, in a sandbox MMO its clear from the start whether you will be sent to questhubs (if there are any at all). Still, that doesnt mean that a sandbox nowadays doesnt need a good ingame help database or a very good tutorial that sends you to npcs that explain about certain features. Those take nothing away from the freedom within the game (provided you can skip the tutorial), but everything with making the player familiar with the virtual world that the devs had in mind.
It has all to do with the way devs describe their game and what expectations it makes with the players.
I would never play a sandbox MMO anymore that lacks ingame documentation or good tutorials. It pisses me off now if I have to forumdive for information. Fallen Earth for example shows a lot of information ingame. Not that it is a sandbox MMO (yet or will be ever), but its a good addition imo.
Yeah, definitely agree with FFA PVP not being a requirement. In fact the sandbox-ish MMO I've spent the most time in was Haven & Hearth, which had basically no PVP at all and was mostly just about surviving a wilderness. (It actually had non-consentual full-loot PVP but I literally never saw it happen once in my ~2 months playing the game.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
They don't work because with the exception of SWG,, nobody has made a good sandbox. I also think it has alot to do with the new generation of players, they love the "hold me by the hand" theme park.
People who join a sandbox to build sandcastles don't usually like it when others destroy the castles, usually even before they are finished. Very few people find it fun to constantly rebuild the same thing over and over.
Like many ppl have said I believe lack of budget tbh, FFA PVP aside which is NOT needed but would be nice in some consentual form ( enter a siege field etc.. ), Mortal Online and Darkfall just fall short of expectation, lack of budge, proper management, and experience.
That is the sad reality, if someone like blizzard builds a sandbox its not a guarantee that would be a success but it would be polished, good design and would deliver on the features.
Sandbox proponents seem to sabotage their own preferences because so many take the super-elitist approach of "if it's not 100% sandbox then it's not sandbox". As sandbox fans we need to accept that any MMO will be a blend of the two and it's enough for one to be sandbox-y in majority without having to be so in totality to be a great sandbox game.
Having quests does not preclude a game from being a sandbox so long as those quests do not exhibit a large degree of artificial railing (level required / hub-to-hub chaining). In WoW, the theme-park way, I can't get quest D until I am level N and have done quest A followed by B followed by C. In EVE, the sanbox way, I can get a mission if I am liked by a corp (or my corp is liked, or liked by their faction) and I can become liked by a corp regardless of my power level or what specific other missions I've done before. Then I can accept a L4 mission even if I don't have anywhere the skills or ship to actually have a hope in hell of completing it.
This is why Skyrim is mostly a sandbox. Yes, it has tons of quests and even quest chains, but access to them is vastly independent of other quests you've done or of your level. Once the starter part is done you can go to whatever town and take on quests or you can go off the rails and just hunt things in the wild, explore dungeons without having the quest and so on. You still get viable advancement. Most importantly you are not artificially locked out of areas until you've done X or got to level Y (compare for example to Diablo or Final Fantasy games)
A sandbox does not need to have FFA PvP (or even any PvP) because a sandbox does not have to be completely and utterly unlimited in each and every respect. In the same way it doesn't need to have non-instanced player built housing, instanced housing can be great (EQ2 did a decent job of this in an otherwise non-sandbox game).
The lack of budget and catering to a niche group of PvP'ers kind of goes hand in hand. As much as you may like PvP you can't have it both ways. Either FFA PvP or a big budget tripple A title people will actually play.
Yes...which is exactly the point I made in my post. Glad you agree.
He didn't talk about FFA PvP, he was talking about consentual PvP.
PvP in general is not a niche market. Not even close. It also doesn't necessarily involve player killing, all PvP stands for is player vs. player game mechanics, which many games have in other forms. The primary PvP going on in EVE, for example, is economic PvP, even though the game DOES have FFA PvP and is still quite popular and successful.
A lack of any type of interesting PvP (metagamer gear and stat races are excluded) is a surefire way to cut your prospective player numbers in half. Please stop spreading the complete misinformation that PvP is a small niche that nobody plays. Except for cooperative PvE MMOs, there are very few games where the primary mode of playing is not a player vs. player system.
You have to realize that even in EVE there is a huge segment of players who choose to opt out of PvP completely or almost completely. Many players never set foot outside HiSec and many others live in null/WHs in the protected space of a corp/alliance where they mine / rat without engaging in almost any PvP. EVE is unique as a FFA PvP game in this respect because it provides both a huge amount of content in almost-safe space and the ability to own and defend space providing a relatively safe haven for your allies.
Edit:
And yes, I realize that even HiSec is never 100% safe, but for all intents and purposes it is nearly so to an acceptable degree.
Also, a good example of the reaction of many players to the prospect of PvP is watching how many non-PvP corps will just go idle and put their gameplay on hold for a week or two if someone wardecs them.
Sandboxes are like the old west; lawless and hard to control. You get a lot of people who complain about every little thing, and suddenly want things 'ballanced' because they feel their playstyle is being punished or abused. Then if the devs stick to their guns and tell them that they have the same opportunities as everyone else and they are just going to have to deal with it they throw fits all over the forum and drive potential players off in droves. Worse yet the devs decide to make drastic changes to 'save' the game... *cough* NGE *cough*... and completely alienate the fan base they had.
The corporations and individuals who aren't getting involved with the wardecs and ship fights, and those that stay in hisec, are still participating in a PvP of sorts. It's economic PvP, where they try to earn relatively large amounts of ISK when compared to their fellow players.
Very few people would play EVE on a subscription basis if all they wanted to do was mine and run missions as a single player or in a small cooperative group. That is the realm of single-player games, and is not EVE's forte at all. Please don't pretend that the majority of EVE's playerbase are timid antisocial grinders. It isn't the truth at all.
EDIT: All functional sandboxes (and even most of the disfunctional ones) have zones that are relatively safe. There aren't thousands of complaints from people getting killed and looted within these safe zones. The complaints are all about them leaving the safe zones, and expecting to be able to find something to do there other than be someone's prey. Most of the complaints actually arise from a lack of imagination, rather than actual misbehavior on the part of a veteran player. The players are just wandering around in unsafe areas without a purpose, and that is sure to get them killed.
More people that don't belong in an MMORPG, let alone a FFA sandbox.