Its better to allow your players a better degree of freedom then to artificially prevent them from doing things. I personally am of the open world viewpoint. I don’t like not being able to hold a sword just because I’m a Mage, or being unable to learn metal crafting because I’m an Archer. I think if someone puts time and energy into a project or developing a skill, that they should reap the rewards. It should be about time and effort spent.
Not everyone will want to necessarily follow the same course. Not everyone will be willing to do certain tasks, or have the innate skill-set or interest to perform various tasks. Hopefully not every region will have the required important resources. (Minecraft.)
That is where diversity and free market can develop organically, with player actions.
One player should be allowed to work hard enough to survive solo. In fact I like that, I often enjoy a measure of solitude in my games. I pit myself again the wilderness. (Outside games as well) I am a fairly independent person, I don’t feel the need to socialize all the time. I’m sure many other introverts would concur. (INFJ) Players like myself should be free to explore and develop in their own way, making connections as we see fit.
And there is of course the other side of the coin. The socialites, players who enjoy being around other players all the time. Those are the players who develop the community. They build the civilizations, the guilds, the clans and corporations. As skilled or intelligent as a solo player might be, they are still just one person. They cannot run a mining operation, or a logging company, or build a populated city.
I see no major problem in ether type of gameplay, nor is one inherently superior to the other. Let the world develop as it might, as players enjoy the world’s as they like.