Okay. After cooling down, taking some time to think things over, I think I'm ready to start this over.
I stand by my statement. However, in retrospect, I probably would have worded it differently. I was overly hostile and should have pushed back on your statement in a more civil way, and not make you feel like I didn't respect you.
Let's go over your statement:
You admit that you think setting consistency is more important than "raw playability". Unless I misunderstand you, "setting consistency" to you means "no retcons or rethinking older settings, unless they add to the setting, in which case I don't care".
And I understand why you value "setting consistency". I really do. I think it's often nice to have. If a future edition published an Eberron book that said that the Mourning was caused by Mordenkainen having a wizard battle with Urza, I would be more than a bit miffed because a huge part of Eberron that should stay consistent is that the Mourning is never given a canon cause (and the additional complaint that I think that would be a bad explanation). Hell, I would be upset if my version of what caused the Mourning was made canon, not because I think my answer is bad, but because I love that Eberron has "mystery boxes" that the DM is required to fill. Setting consistency should be respected, to an extent.
But here's why you're wrong. And I don't mean "I disagree with your opinion" wrong, I mean provably, absolutely wrong.
D&D is a game. It's meant to be played, not just have its lore and books discussed and read. "Playability" is a requirement for the game. It's necessary. It's not something that's nice to have or annoying when you don't have it, like with setting consistency. When you don't have "playability", you can't have a game. You can have a game and settings without "setting consistency". They aren't necessary, they're just often nice to have.
Playability is necessary. It's non-negotiable. Setting consistency is, whether you like it or not, negotiable. You can have a game and a world without it.
And, as was said earlier, you can fairly easily have both. They're not in conflict. The only person making it seem like they are is you.
Sorry for the overly-dismissive and rude original comment. I hope this helps better explain my view and why I reacted so harshly to your statement.