Translation:This thing is never played with anymore.
I agree, the English sounds impossibly clumsy. I'm stuck not knowing if the original Dutch sentence is just a simple statement - this thing (that used to be played with) is no longer played with (now) - or whether it can be used in the context suggested by NirRL above, and echoed by 'silverthornfire', i.e. a parent declaring that a toy is now out of bounds, for whatever reason. The first context seems to be more about the past, without saying WHEN things stopped being as they were, while the second is more about what is going to be from THIS moment forward. It would be nice to know how the Dutch would change the emphasis in the two contexts.
Er + passive construction (worden + voltooid deelwoord (like 'gespeeld')) is a natural and common way of conveying a general impersonal statement. E.g. "Er wordt aan de straat gewerkt" - the road is being worked on (i.e. they are working on the road(s)), without emphasizing the subject. Other example: "Elk jaar worden er duizenden bomen omgehakt" - Every year thousands of trees are (being) cut down".
I think the translation uses the wrong tense and thus sounds awkward. You want to refer to something that probably has been repeated in the past and will no longer happen in the future.
If the words "any more" are used in the translation, imho you should not use present tense, but instead use "will not" or "won't" and drop or change the "never".
"This thing won't ever be played with any more."
"There is no more playing with this thing." is accepted and sounds more natural.