A decent point, here.
I think people like myself (and a few others from this thread) just need to accept that D&D just isn't "that" game anymore. It's fairly simple (which is good and bad, mostly bad, but just IMO), provides a simple framework through which one can play through some swords-and-magic adventures. Monster in-game complexity, more detailed character development, more and better options...it's just not there.
You are, of course, just talking about
mechanical character development. There's all sorts of interesting...more interesting, IMO..."character development" that doesn't require rules. Every week that I play a character he/she develops further, usually without leveling.
And that's on purpose. It's supposed to appeal more to the casual crowd than the hardcore gamer crowd. Someone upthread mentioned board game cafe people and I think that's right.
Codswallop. You are defining "hardcore" in an overly narrow way.
It's the best way to understand how leveling up a character in mere moments is a feature; it's bizarre to me because leveling up is between weekly sessions, not something done in session, but in a different kind of playing atmosphere, I can understand how making/leveling up a character in no time at all is a good feature.
This threw me a little. Maybe you are taking options and rules and complexity and combining that with leveling time, as if they are all part and parcel. They're not. While I think 5e has too many options already, I also think the leveling happens way too fast. I like campaigns that last for years, where you really feel invested in your character. It's one of my biggest complaints about 5e.
I do find it weird how people like not getting product, but maybe the fear of oversaturation runs that deep. I don't know, myself; I feel a the game is doing well enough that it could take the "risk" of producing a bit more, but what the hell. What do people want to see WotC produce? Every time I see an idea offered, it tends to get shot down. Should they produce nothing? It seems weird.
I think most people like more adventures, more campaign settings, etc. But many of us don't like what happens to a game when too many mechanical character choices are offered: all of the sudden players starting finding bizarre combinations whose only positive attribute is MOAR POWAH, and then they slap on a character concept as an afterthought. It changes the emphasis of the game, in negative ways.
Even as regards spells; some are just so clearly superior that it ends up being something of a false choice; most casters have the same base of spells. I know people will say that you might choose spells based on personality quirks of the character or whatever, but playing to your character shouldn't involve choosing a markedly inferior option.
Now that part I do agree with. That's another one of the flaws of 5e (and previous editions) in my mind.
From what I have read, PF2 may be swinging the pendulum too far the other way, but maybe not so far that people who are a bit more "hardcore" gamer might still appreciate it.
Again with that narrow, selective use of "hardcore". It's simply a different emphasis. Imagine two players:
Player #1 plays 4 nights a week in 4 different campaigns, 2 of which he DMs. In between he follows others' streaming games, builds elaborate 3D sets for his adventures, puts together soundtracks and creates elaborate parchment player handouts, and he puts hour and hours into drawing sketches of character and NPCs. But he doesn't allow any supplements at his table: it's straight PHB, with no feats or multiclassing.
Player #2 plays twice a month, and in between he reads various forums to figure out how to optimize his character mechanically, because at his table all supplements, UA, and many homebrew options are all allowed.
Who is more "hardcore"?