See this argument breaks down when the typical MMORPG elements are the defining elements of every MMORPG.
Improvement in the industry is all about breaking away from some of these elements, and that rift claimed to, more or less, do so and has failed to is evidence that it is but a typical MMORPG, which in this day and age means WoW.
MMORPGs have so few defining characteristics that the typical base formula is really all they are. So if they share the typical MMORPG elements, they are 99% alike.
Final Fantasy, tales of phantasia, dragon quest etc. etc. are all the exact same because no one broke away from the elements. You are just too close-minded to realize 2 games can have the exact same features, and be completely different experiences. I loved EQ1 and hated EQ2, EQ2 was basically just EQ1 but it had new features like instances and enhanced graphics, why would I prefer the game that looks more generic in the feature list? Because you aren't even taking into account: Lore, amount of content, how fun the zones are, how easy it is to get together with people and have fun, do you have a class that really is fun to you. There is probably thousands of tiny things you can't throw on a feature list that when added up together will make you hate a game or love it.