The article raises interesting questions, but I must disagree with some of the "given facts" it uses as evidence.

I played Dark Age of Camelot as someone disinterested in PvP or RvR combat; I expected to barely last a month, and stayed much longer (primarily as a soloist) because I found the PvE and gamestory lore very interesting and enjoyable.

So, to suggest that DAoC only appeals to PvP/RvR players may be innacurate; the only reason I left DAoC was that the outdated graphics started to bug my eyeballs after a while. It remains one of the better MMORPGs I've played.

By contrast, WARs PvE (I haven't gone back for Land of the Dead) was really sort of shallow. I even tried the PvP for a while, and while I found it more interesting than I expected, I quickly realized it too was sort of shallow -- a pointless competition; warring just to war.

For me, WAR borrowed one design concept from WoW that I wish they'd left alone: the obvious treadmill.

PvE or PvP, it all seems to boil down to "Do this, get phat loot, so you can level up and do *this*, and get phatter loot, and so on, and so on, and so on ..."

Yes, most MMORPGs have some sort of treadmill action, but the "phat loot" treadmill can be the worst -- and neither WAR nor WoW made much effort when I played either to distract from the grinder aspects with entertaining stories.

I like WAR, and I hope it ultimately sorts its problems and succeeds -- but neither myself, nor my friends have liked it _enough_ to keep paying to play it.

This may be WAR's problem; it's good, but it's not good enough in any one game aspect to make people stay?