This is an interesting thread. I was in pretty much the exact same state of mind shortly after 4e was announced, in the dying days of 3e.
My group had been playing together since late 2e, though all of our group members individual gaming histories go back beyond that, for the most part. We had moved into 3e, somewhat awkwardly, playing a monstrously bastardized hybrid beast, with houserules constantly in flux, never quite right. 3.5 came along, and we adopted it into the mess.
I should point out that I was thoroughly tired of the perceived flaws of 2nd edition, and the Player's Option series only partially made up for it. We had switched to positive AC and attack modifiers already (from the "10 things you can do to be ready for 3rd edition TODAY!" article from way back, and we liked it. Despite a long and enjoyable history with 2nd ed, I was ready for a change. I liked the things I'd been hearing/reading about 3e, for the most part.
Then the books came out. I devoured them. It was D&D, but new, with some interesting ideas. I hated the artistic direction (where's my Elmores and Easleys?), but liked the game itself. Not everyone in the group agreed, so we ended up bastardizing. We still had legacy houserules from 1e. I would never want to do that again, honestly, but that's what we did.
The hybrid rules, combined with the bloat afflicting 3.x was taking its toll on both the players and the primary DM (me). We were pretty much in the same boat as at the end of the 2nd edition era; we were tired of the flaws, unwilling to "go back" or stay where we were, but not sure where else to turn. I was looking at Pathfinder then, some of the others were pushing for E6, or even a return to 2e. We were actively entertaining other systems. Any other system.
When they announced 4e, it was obvious that we had to change. This made it obvious that they were not going to "fix" the problems with 3e, ever. I was feeling a little spiteful toward WotC. Like hell they were going to get any more of my money, I thought. I still hated the art direction (still don't like it actually, though it has improved thanks to the griping of grognards like me), and the inclusion of Tieflings and Dragonborn races, and Warlords and Warlocks in the first handbook did nothing for trying to convince me.
I was pushing even more for Pathfinder, still hopeful that they would be able to fix what we all knew was wrong with 3.x D&D. I didn't care that it wasn't even called D&D anymore. I had even been working on my own 3.75 D&D to fix what I felt Paizo was missing. I thought that Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might was going to be my answer, and my platform.
Then, the one guy in the group most vocal about 4e being 'okay' convinced me. We tried it, and all liked it, to enough of a degree that it was the first system since 2e was 'the only game in town' that we could call an acceptable compromise. We haven't really looked back since.
The thought of going back to Pathfinder or 3.x is just as unacceptable now as going back to 2e was back then (besides, my wife and co-DM would probably divorce me!). The difference of course, is that we all still are happy enough with 4e that we could continue using it, even if WotC is in a "death spiral." And the best part: that won't change. They can't "take back" the rules. We own the books, and we still have the old CB classic & Adventure Tools, and that's all we need.
Is it perfect? No, but it is good enough until something we like better comes along. If that never happens, so be it; we'll continue to enjoy the hobby, with or without WotC or even D&D.
