I agree that people will be disappointed if it doesn't come off a lot like UO as far as gameplay and genre as an "MMO", since Garriot has called this title a "spiritual successor" to UO. The thing that set UO apart from 100 other RPGs was its MMO sandbox quality, and the unbridled ability to roleplay good and evil. Without this, what similarities would exist between the two titles, then? I find myself wondering what is the point of canvassing for opinion about PvP if other players are only presented "opportunistically" instead of in real-time. Instanced PvP is alright and I enjoy it, but it lacks the heart-thumping nature of open PvP. Same with stealing.
I think part of our job as a community is not to just go along and report what we hear from the developer, but to challenge it as well, ask the hard questions, and let players openly express their opinions about it.
I agree that we should challenge and ask hard questions about what we are told. I think they're even expecting it.
However, if the way I believe it works is true, this is not a roleplay or PvP inhibitor. The real loss is CONCURRENCY. You won't be able to see EVERYONE at the same time, which is fine, because in most cases as he believes, it's irrelevant. You can still play a role of any kind at any time, among friends. You can still at least PvP and fight with friends.
The big questions that have not been answered, and must be asked is, how are we going to do these things with STRANGERS? How do the mechanics work in such a way that I have the opportunity to come across the path of others I've never met before? How do I sell them goods? How are we going to have houses and real estate "in the game world", not instanced, if not everyone shares the same world space, to say nothing of PvP and thieving? (A friend probably won't steal from me or kill me.. Too often.)
I can see how you could technically meet "strangers" through "friends", though. Say I have only 1 friend (... Pretty accurate). I see my 1 friend. However, my friend has 2 friends. So now there's 4 of us, and 2 of them are people I don't necessarily know. They each have 5 friends, so now there are 14 people, only 1 of which I may know.. Etc., etc. You can even see how that can actually BUILD a community, because you meet the friends of friends of friends etc... Reminds me of the cliche, "A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet."
The question is, how far out does it go? Unless everyone friended to everyone can end up in the same gamespace, what's the cutoff before it must all be concurrent? Or are they banking on the fact that all players will not necessarily be on AT THE SAME TIME, which is why and where asynchronous gameplay comes in. That way, your world is filled with players, even if they are not on at the same time, and I guess technically, never should be. And that COULD be why they don't need a megaverse or a shard structure. These social structures may go out to say, 1000 people, which is LESS than a server supports, but since you're not on concurrently, and the "Scenes" that you go to are separate from the world map, and then only shared by people who are there, the structure starts to make sense, and the lack of simultaneous concurrency among THOUSANDS of players would be more transparent, but still giving it an MMO feel.
Tough questions, all. And we should drill'em for it.