Imaro
Legend
The problem is, experience has shown that there are a lot of players who will not roleplay (bold and italics aimed not at you, but said players who will not roleplay), if the rulebook doesn't tell them to roleplay and how to do it. It isn't that they don't know how to make the attempt, as I've seen them make the attempt in other systems that tell them to make the attempt and give them rules about it. Even the existence of rules that they think are "dumb, and easily exploitable" prompts them to roleplay "better than the rules", while the absence of rules makes them sit there like a bump on a log. Gamers are bizarre creatures and I pity whoever has to develop products for them.
I've literally heard players when they get called on randomly killing npcs because they looked at them wrong, justify it by saying "well, despite all your logical reasons why this would be a 'bad and insane thing', you have to accept that this is still D&D". Which to them was the most compelling argument in the world, and was convincing to half the table, while the other half of the table stood their with their mouths open in shock.
Especially because it has been my observation that these very same players will rake 4E over the coals for being a combat game that tells you how to play your character and won't let you have any originality.
I don't think they are admitting their design and direction of 4E was wrong. It was a perfect design for players who will think of their characters as a persona driven by their background and own internal reasoning. I think they are admitting that too many players can't handle being entrusted with doing the roleplaying aspect of the game for themselves.
So for those players that have difficulty conceptualizing the idea of saying "hey GM, my character is a blacksmith because it is part of my character's identity" and the GM saying "cool beans, when you want to do something blacksmithy, I'll give you a DC that takes that into account". They are apparently going to give material to guide their thought process. Which experience has shown me is actually needed for a lot of players.
Or perhaps because it is a roleplaying game... as opposed to a tactical combat skirmish game... some people would prefer that they had a mechanic(s) in place to enable them to achieve the results that they actually want from working certain things into their characters background, personality, etc. within the rules structure of the game.
Or Perhaps when sitting down at different tables with different DM's they don't necessarily want to have to first play mother-may-I to even have a "background" in the first place and then continuously have to negotiate or get approval for what it is this supposed background can or cannot allow the PC to do within the game.
As a DM I like having these types of mechanics because they allow me to create conflicts and challenges, within the mechanical framework of the game I am playing, that are catered to the aspects of a character that don't directly deal with combat in a fair (hopefully balanced), interesting and mechanically robust way...
No, wait a minute I must be wrong...you're right it's that a large fraction of uncreative players apparently need their thought processes guided as mentally they can't handle roleplaying... ...whatever.
Anyway, I for one applaud WotC for realizing that there was something tangible that many of their former and even current customers found lacking in much of 4e gameplay... I am happy they are changing the design and development to account for and correct this, as I wasn't a fan of the previous 4e direction or conceits. As far as whether it failed or not... no one but WotC knows that, though I don't think they would have changed anything if their current path had been doing perfectly from an economic stand point... but no one can know for sure.