Frankly, 4e rules make more sense - not just from a marketing point of view but from a game mechanics one too. After all, isn't the most common complaint about 4e that it's too "video gamey?"
You points are valid, but I continue to vote with my dollars against 4E even with regards to video games.
What could speak for 3E are licening issues. Eventually Atari is only licened to publish 3E games and as we learned they don't have much money. Don't underrate licence policy. Don't.
Well, BG2 and its expansions were based on 2e rules even during the 3.x era, and while I'd have to check on it, I think they took place, time-wise prior to 3.x (though there wasn't a time jump or massive changes to the world between 2e and 3e, so not much difference really as much as a 3e to 4e transition).
I would be awfull bad marketing on WoTCs part to allow a 3e game begin development now, INHO and all that. Also I am not sure that fans of the game series that do not play pnp would be all that bothered.
They are not as invested in the game system as pnp players.
The biggest issue would be the destruction of neverwinter, of course they could set the game during the spell plague or centre it around some reclamining of Neverwinter.
From my quick perusal of the FR books the Sword Coast has risen due to the spell plague but the mouth of the Neverwinter river is probably still the next achorage north of Waterdeep and as such it is an obvious location for a port. Probably not at the site of the original city. Seem to be a good basis for a campaing/MMO/rpg backstory.
It would be awful bad marketing on WoTCs part t...
Well, BG2 and its expansions were based on 2e rules even during the 3.x era, and while I'd have to check on it, I think they took place, time-wise prior to 3.x (though there wasn't a time jump or massive changes to the world between 2e and 3e, so not much difference really as much as a 3e to 4e transition).