They make one game, they put a price tag, and you're free to buy it or not.
Except that 5E is being explicitly described as many possible games, through combinations of modules, of which all fans of previous editions will find a game to appeal to them. Should I not judge them on the expectations they've laid out for themselves? I'm saying that to have a new D&D that appeals to me, I require balanced encounter building rules. And that to be balanced, they must account for magic items in some way. They could be in a module, or whatever, I don't care, but the rules have to exist. So far, there's no indication that they're even considering that issue. Hence my feedback.
And what's the point of playtesting if every possible criticism can be met with "well, I'm sure there's someone that likes it as-is, so I guess the game isn't for you." At this stage, in this discussion context, "buy it or not" is simply a discussion-killing fallacy. As long as I'm in their target audience (and based on what they've said, I am), your fallacy doesn't apply to me.
Realize that if you constantly think a game needs fixing, it is most likely because you just like fixing games.
Huh? How do we get from "I want game designers to make games that are well-designed and don't need to be fixed by the DM/players" to "I want to fix games myself when I DM/play them"? Aren't those opposite?