As far as WotC future strategy, I really do not think they are planning a 6e anytime soon. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Mike Mearls (and probably others on his team) are hoping they'll never see another revision/edition. Mike already made it known in an interview that they see this edition as being a lost-lasting edition, and hints were given over the past couple years that imply they are more likely to (eventually) release some options for doing things differently if you'd like, without changing the basic chassis.
I expect we'll eventually see things with a scope similar to late 2e players options (skills and powers, etc), but that they won't make a new edition until someone forces them to.
Personally I agree completely with that strategy. I don't like having a new and better edition of D&D to buy, which I will then need to spend lots of time on analyzing and creating the resources to fit my playstyle.
Now, if they make 6e (and 7e, and 8e) and they all suck, then that isn't going to bother me, because I won't be missing out by not buying them. But I would rather that they wait another 30 years to decide if there is a sufficient reason to make a new edition--and it ought to be the final edition at that point because RPG design should have evolved sufficiently that they have figured out what the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing experience is supposed to look like and just call it DONE! They don't have to reinvent chess every 6-10 years, because the game is done! It doesn't mean that there isn't anything you can spend your chess money on, it just means that you aren't required to buy anything new in order to keep up with an ever shifting mark.
So I guess my preference is that I don't like an evolving core game. It's absolutely contrary to my desires in an RPG.
That's pretty much my read of the situation. I think they very much are looking to have 5E be an evergreen edition - in essence trading cyclical booming sales of new core books for slower book sales with minimal overhead spent on . They're likely banking on the non-RPG components of the brand (tie-in board games, video games, merchandise, and movie rights) bringing in more than they'd make on splatbooks after all is said and done.
If you're not going to be satisfied with the current release rate (Unearthed Arcana articles / biannual adventure paths and an accompanying player's option hardcover or PDF), that's not good news. But what's interesting is your point about an evolving "core game". They've talked about a living ruleset, but in your own view, where does the cut-off occur? Core book reprints with any changes beyond typo fixes?
With everything other than "Basic" being "non-core" in 5E, it's hard for me to see much of a distinction between
changes to the system and
additions to the system. Does something like the spell-less Ranger archetype they just released constitute an "evolving core"? What about the Warforged in January's Unearthed Arcana? If so, how is that any different from the Aasimar example race in the DMG?
At some point, the books simply can't hold everything that they
could have published. Is something automatically "non-Core" just because it didn't make the page count?
OK. Who? Of the 13 employees, who barely have time to address Twitter, which of them is spending time reading this message board? I mean, even if they had time to read a message board (I don't think they do), and then had the inclination to do so (I don't think they do) wouldn't they start with the WOTC board? And then if they wanted to read a non-WOTC board (again, highly unlikely)...what makes you think it would be this one (given there is one board even bigger than this one)? And then if you think they read this one...what makes you think it would be threads like this one? I just think the odds of anything in particularly a person posts here will ever be read by someone at the D&D division of WOTC. You probably have a bigger chance of being struck by lightening. This is not the place to send a message to D&D folks at WOTC.
Like SkidAce, I agree with the central thrust of your argument - that there are more productive avenues for getting Wizards' attention - but to be fair,
Mearls posted here last week. So it's not exactly inconceivable that they'd be aware of the fan arguments being posted here.
Of course, if they've any wisdom whatsoever, they'll ignore everything they read online - never, ever trust a source's argument based on how vocal they are about it. They've got hard sales info and the ability to gather detailed survey feedback about how to best move forward, that's what should they should listen to.
