Yup, as I said. You could argue that if there isn't a majority of opinion steering in a particular direction then WotC should go a different way. I see from your sig you play 4E and I assume you like what you see in the direction of the new edition. Let's assume you like what they eventually produce and, along with some portion of the current base as well as a minor portion of lapsed players, you buy into the new edition. Then, let's say WotC doesn't feel the turnout is enough to support that new edition after but a couple/few years. I don't think those folks, maybe including yourself, are going to be all that happy having spent a hundred or more dollars on the new edition.
However, if they wish to recapture lapsed players and only a small percentage of the feedback is coming from lapsed players, do they ignore that small percentage in favor of a lot of feedback from current players? Do they abandon their plan to recapture the ones who are not giving feedback but WotC knows are out there and WotC wants if they are going to be as successful as they need to be to not just give up on this edition after a few years like the last one? I suppose the correlated question would be, how does a company unable to get feedback from some segment of the market manage to produce a game for that segment of the market if it really needs to reach them?
It seems they have created a slippery slope for themselves. They say they want "everyone" on board, but the early feedback is driving them toward creating a game with many of the features that were rejected by the very fans they want to recapture. The more they show they are going in that direction the less likely those lapsed players are to follow along, playtest, and give feedback. As that progresses, WotC works with the feedback they have and continues further in the direction away from pleasing the lapsed fans. The cycle accelerates. It might become a self-fulfilling failure based on the inability to see beyond the early, current fan feedback.
One way to adjust for the situation would be to make sure the feedback they do receive is weighted in such a way that sheer numbers from any one school of thought won't tilt the design process in a given direction. If they wish a design to ultimately please, let's say, five different editions' fans, then the feedback from each fan base would garner 20% of the design priority, regardless if any given edition had an overwhelming number of fans giving feedback. Wthout such an approach, they are bound to never have a chance to bring certain segments on board during the design phase and probably not once they reach the point when they plan to publish.
I play 4e because it plays well on Maptools and I live in Grimsby UK and without Mapotools I would have no one to play with, ergo... before 4e I played 3.5e, before 3.5e I played 3e etc all the way back to 1979. Every edition of D&D that has come along I've played (and dozens of other games).
In the last year I've also run (with some of my students) DCC RPG, Paranoia, Savage Worlds etc.
I'll play 5e but I don't get the brouhaha, at least... What I mean to say is there have been problems with more or less every RPG game I've played that have required house rules, so house rule 'em. Or else make some bastard hybrid, or else stick with what you know and love.
Now to WOTC and the insidious 4e conspiracy, how do they do that- how do they track down people who are lapsed D&D players and get some form of coherent opinion. I've seen forums here in which equally lapsed D&D players have said that (and I'm generalsiing but...) -
I don't dig 5e as its just 4e with...
And the next post-
I don't dig 5e because it's D&D.x with...
And an equal number of each.
Similarly I've read posts from 4e players saying, hang on though-
I don't dig 5e because they're going back to...
And I get that this partially proves your point, but it don't help me or WOTC none, so we end up here-
I suppose the correlated question would be, how does a company unable to get feedback from some segment of the market manage to produce a game for that segment of the market if it really needs to reach them?
And here is a difficult place to be, for all concerned, but here's the kicker- we're not even into the playtests and people seem to have some very rigid positions- 5e is not for me.
How do WOTC get around that, because there seems to be an awful lot of it about for a game that doesn't much exist yet, or at least could be re-written several times over if it all goes crazy in the playtest.
The point again from WOTC POV we don't tell you what we're up to (4e) you get mad, we tell you what we're up to (5e) and ask questions and you get mad and...
Just to make this clear- I couldn't tell you one thing I'm certain about in 5e, as in I've skimmed some stuff (on the 5e page here), rogues backstabs something, something about at wills I think- for wizards. But whatever it is that 5e turns out to be I'll either fix it and roll with the system or else stick with system X. JUst wanted to make clear where I'm at, oh and if 4e never existed I'd still be playing D&D. I'll still buy the crunch if the production values are up there- and I'll still use it (if I can), the same reason I still buy lots of Paizo stuff and have never played Pathfinder yet.
As to the 20% rule- fans of 4e vote now, fans of 3.5e vote now, fans of etc.
I've played them all, where do I sit, is there a system I like more than any other, well... yes, I mean no, I mean- well I'd like this from WFRP, I'd like this from DCC RPG. Is there a system of D&D I am a fanboy for- nope, 3.x at high levels drove me absolutely crazy for about 3 years- prep time spent crying (seriously); 4e is flavourless gick (at times). Oh I've fixed them though- eventually, or at least did some work arounds.
Or does it all boil down to 4e and the others, because that seems to be right up there- those that played 4e and enjoyed it... and then the true D&Ders- the people that kept the flame alive with Pathfinder et al. Is that what this is really about?
There's bound to be more people in the system right now who play 4e, that's the edition we're on, I guess many people who didn't get the 4e boat are maybe over on Pathfinder island waving and smiling.
Last bit, something I remember from the 5e spiel, wasn't it supposed to be some sort of base unit D&D- live and unplugged kinda thing with a 4e type top coat available, or a 3.5x, or a 2e feel- a modular system. What happened to that? Is that still how its going to work? Don't tell me we can't even agree at the very bottom level... Boy that'd be like getting 5 people in a room and having 5 different opinions, or it could be that we've all been playing our 'groups' version of D&D for the last whatever.
I get this is the internet but people are painting themselves in to corners and I don't even know what colour healing potions are- they're red and smell of apples, anything less and 5e is a joke.
Sorry for the levity, it's very serious though isn't it, arguing about a game I've not played and have seen exactly 0 of the rules for, oh and the rules are possibly subject to change in the next year or so...
I guess you're right- WOTC wants those lapsed players back, the point though is do you want D&D (and in particular 5e) if you do then you need to perhaps chillax a little more, see how it plays, if its not you then make some noise- tell WOTC in any way you can, otherwise I think the numbers may have it.
PS none of this was meant to offend, just POV, just spitballing.
Last bit, about my sig, if you'd have bumped into my sig five years ago it would have been full of my Goodman Games 3.5e campaign, and my Temple of Elemental Evil 3e campaign, and my 'Auntie and the Professor' Campaign- I kind of mixture of Paranoia, D&D and some other stuff campaign, and... I've been so busy playing D&D (my version based on whatever edition plus some stuff I made up) that I've almost had no time to worry about what's coming around the corner.
Cheers PDR