I'm a little surprised folks can look at the four-role structure of 4e and NOT see the MMO influence.
Roles came into videogames from D&D, not the other way around.
Or the power-card structure of your character's abilities and NOT see them as well-suited for a digital environment.
Did you know that Magic the gathering is harder to program for than older editions of D&D are? It's complex interaction of interrupting actions, exception-based rules, and so on all make the various Magic Online projects rather challenging. This is part of why the Duels of the Planeswalkers online game is vastly simplified compared to normal Magic, and why many older Magic-inspired videogames don't even use the Magic rules. Of course, 4E takes many of these elements that make Magic hard to program for.
On the other hand, there is a long list of perfectly accurate AD&D and 3E videogames.
Or hear about how many people have trouble making characters without the DDI and believe that the DDI WASN'T part of the plan from the beginning.
The fact that tools are valuable doesn't change the fact that the play was created with tabletop in mind. Also, this argument could be leveled just as easily at 3E, considering character builders and virtual tabletops are just as essential to that game as they are to 4E. Master Tools was advertised in the 3E core rulebooks, after all...
FWIW, getting ideas from videogames isn't a bad thing. I draw more inspiration from Shigeru and Hironobu than I do from JRR and Fritz, myself.

But a game should be designed for the medium it inhabits, and D&D doesn't inhabit a digital medium. Design lessons can be embraced, but they need to be adapted, not merely copypasta'd, and the pen and paper should always guide you more than the keyboard and monitor. I think 4e was smart to try some videogame ideas, though it might not've been smart to loose sight of the previous 30 years in the process....especially when your digital department has been a mess since before AOL.
I mean, the previous 30 years of design on D&D
also had a lot of lessons to teach. I have to wonder if WotC's practice of firing senior staff had something of an effect on them loosing that thread.
4E is designed for the tabletop, rather than the digital medium. I mean, they explicitly
removed many of the things from older editions that work better on computers than at the table. Stuff like the
Bull's Strength spell, which modifies ability scores and forces heavy recalculation, is incredibly easy to do with a computer but a big pain at the table. Naturally, 4E removed all spells of that type. Similarly, 3E's complex monster creation rules require a fair amount of calculation that could easily be handled by a computer, while 4E changed those rules to avoid that and decrease that amount of calculation. Old school random generation of events from tables is perfectly ideal for computer play (just ask NetHack or Dwarf Fortress), but a giant time sink at a game table.
4E is less suited to online play than 1E is, honestly. If it was designed to be more suited to digital play, then it would have a lot more on-the-fly stat modification, rolling on large lists of tables, complex interactions between different values, and so on. Computers make computation much easier, so a game built for computers would require more computation, not less. You're a Final Fantasy fan, so you have to understand the difference between a typical Final Fantasy attack/damage formula and what 4E expects.
I hope I won't have to pull out my comparison between the way Fire Emblem and D&D works again...