Originally posted by: drebo
You're missing the point. For people who truely enjoy MMOs and are not just looking for a quick, cheap thrill, they generally ARE fun from level one. Hell, a lot of times, that's the most fun in the game.
To make an MMORPG not accomplishment-driven is to make it not an MMORPG. To put everyone on the same plane and not give any means of character advancement, whether that be from items or character levels or skills or whatever, is to forsake the genre. What you would have is no longer an MMORPG.
Now, again, I'm not saying that one type of gaming is better than the other type. Only that they are different and cannot coexist in the same game. It's just not possible to make an MMORPG that caters to the "majority of US gamers" when those gamers prefer a game that's completely the opposite of what an MMORPG is supposed to be.
Certainly, there have been some MMORPGs that have done some things wrong (FFXI was terrible with land movement speeds, DAoC was awefully unbalanced), but even the ones that got it right still would not have been liked by the "typical US gamer". Ultima Online, for instance, before the UO:R patch was about as perfect an MMO as one could want. It was challenging, it was character-driven, it was free-form (no classes), and it combined player skill with character skill levels. It was by far the best MMORPG I ever played, yet it peaked out at about 250K subscribers. It happened early in the life of MMOs, but still. Typical US gamers simply do not look for the same elements in a game that the core audience of an MMORPG looks for, and thus the two cannot coexist.
Note: I do not currently play WoW, but I have played nearly every major market MMORPG out there starting with Ultima Online (missed Meridian 59, unfortunately) and some of the smaller ones. Also, I dislike first-person shooters so much that I cannot make it out of the first level of Half Life before I exit the game in disgust.