I expect that landers, rovers and other uncrewed missions will remain the principle way that "exploration" in space is done. I do have an issue with portraying these kinds of missions as evidence of emerging commercial viability for private enterprises in space. These kinds of 'private' missions are highly dependent on taxpayer support to be viable. Any commercial profitability the companies get comes from the NASA instruments they are paid to carry and helped by NASA programs that offer them below cost launch costs.
Whilst I expect the moon to continue to be a legitimate goal for space agencies doing science it offers no intrinsic commercial opportunities. Without unsubsidised commercial profitability - and a need for astronauts to do it - human presence in space will remain limited.