Right, really. But a MMORPG as well as a MUD or just a good RPG game pretending to be as various as an online game lack something: decay. a Player will NEVER be weaker than before, making it a monotone ascension to greatness. a Player competion is useless when you lose nothing or nearly nothing.
In real life people may lose everything with just an incidental event and have to “RESTART”. And all of us know how frustrating it is in a videogame so this is not agreeable. But when you can save & reload every about 5 seconds because the TERRIFYING end-level monster is just too hard to beat you begin to not fear it anymore, and just get bored.

So, maybe a village elder has some extra motivation, apart amuse himself beholding the hero’s deeds, when he gives him a quest. He NEEDS some help. he can’t battle with monsters anymore and needs new, young armstrenght…

From the main page of Aetolia (www.aetolia.com);

“Join a thriving city, skilled guild, noble house, religious Order, or clan. Or embrace the darkness and become one of the walking dead: a vampire!

Conquer foes with the deepest, most complex combat system around. Lead troops into battle with our epic warfare and diplomacy system.

Create and sell goods of your own design with our huge variety of craft skills. Set up a shop of your own and grow wealthy as a merchant.

Ascend to the highest ranks of political office, where your decisions will shape the history of the world. Or aspire to the ultimate challenge: that of becoming a God!”

Granted, this is a text-based MUD rather than a MMORPG, but in essence the concept is the same.

Make it truely the end of the game! The game “A Tale In The Desert” (http://www.atitd.com) does the very brave thing of actually ENDING the game when things reaches their conclusion. At present it is in its third “telling” using some of the things learnt previousl. A telling takes in the order of 12-18 months it seems.
Using this mechanism implies that reaching the end stage of the game is a collective effort. The player base as a whole needs to move towards it. This means that there is a natural need and place for leaders and craftspeople and grunts. Add to this the good vs evil plot and your end game becomes a truely epic sturggle.

Another way to look at the end game is in terms of story arcs. The end game becomes the end of a major story line. Wether this means an epoic battle, the death or defeat of some major monster or leader, the aversion of catastrophe or an epic disaster does not matter. What does matter is the story and the fact that it changes the world. Being able to tell others that “I was there when the Foozle of Doom was defeated at the gates of Happy Town” is what makes it attractive.
In terms of the game mechanics it means a couple of things. Firstly some events will be unique in an absolute sense. There can be only one “Last Battle”. After this event the world and its structures must be noticably different. X was defeated by Y, so Y is now on the throne and Y has some changes in mind. You backd the losing side? Now you wont have access to all the resources and towns you had before.
BUT… story arcs can overlap. THIS story arc came to an end but another one has been in development for some time now. This story will now become the main focus.

I think that the end game we all want is not some “fire and forget” content made by the developer. We want it to be dynamic and to have meaning. Unfortunately this means a lot more commitment from the deverlopers and game maintainers. But as long as we the players dont make ourselves heard through spending our dollars (or not) it is unlikely that developers will want to commit to such a potentially more expensive undertaking.

Perhaps its time to get more vocal about some indi games and the innovation that is happening there.

The biggest challenge for the eventual designers(I think games like this do not exist at all, but are bound to happen) is to enforce the social mechanics.

When player competes against player with an ability to influence the success of others, some will try to all tricks including those not intended to get ahead.

I think the core mechanic needs to be that every action that you take which will affect another player has a consequence.

Chances are that a player who likes the leveling up game, and there are many, is less happy about whatever else comes after it. While the players who like the “endgame” consider leveling up to reach this to be a chore.

Chasing ever-greater riches also has its appeal but I suspect that introduces too many economic balance issues.

Player designed content provide additional emotional incentive for players – both those who develop and those who get to experience fantasy content designed by their peers. The Sims franchise is an example of a game that spawned a massive following based on player designed content. For MMOs the persistent content and environment alterations of the EVE Online player-base is another game which shows that their is value and interest in dynamic player generated content.

Other than loot (armor and weapons) character advancement is dead in the end-game. You max out your professions, skills and become the farming masses when you’re not raiding.