You state just below, that the success of the game is not due primarily to its design, but to marketing and influencers.
Ergo, people who play (who number in the millions) broadly are more influenced to play it by that marketing and influencers than by the game itself. How are we to take it otherwise? Do you have some other definition of, "due primarily," that we aren't aware of?
Perhaps people should go by what I actually write and not what they read into it.
With respect, you are responsible for representing your own thoughts. If your representation includes an inescapable logic, that is not the reader's fault.
I've said (repeatedly) simply that IMO the success of 5E is not due primarily to its design, most of which elements are built on prior editions, but more so due to the investment by WotC in marketing, influencers
Yes, I understand you assert this.
Mind you, as a point of logic, this is not subject to our opinions. It is true, or it is not. The reality is not influenced by the feelings we use when knowledge is not available.
...wider spread acceptance of gaming and RPGs in general (born mostly from the evolution of the video game industry),
This cannot be material to the argument. If RPGs
in general are more widely accepted, that applies to
all RPGs, not specifically D&D. It does not distinguish D&D separate from other games, or apply more to D&D than other games. It is a rising tide that lifts all boats, not D&D specifically.
and other factors such as the availablity of gaming materials, etc.
Eh, that's weak. There is no real availability bottleneck. Amazon, Kickstarter and crowdfunding, online ordering, the internet, the rise of electronic formats - these are great equalizers of availability. I can go to DriveThruRPG and get surely hundreds, probably thousands of games.
Even before those, back in the age of 2e, White Wolf Games'
World of Darkness line paid credible challenge to the supremacy of D&D. Making materials available enough was possible three decades ago, it surely is possible now.
