This is a stretch.
Not wanting the story of the settings and monsters to arbitrarily change is not the same as wanting the same presentation.
Not wanting the planes to reshape themselves, the Blood War to end, or the nature of fiends to change also doesn't mean I still want boxed sets either.
Dancey does not comment on the presentation, or the boxed sets. He comments on the
content, calling it "confusing" and "jargon-filled". Those aren't quite my reasons for disliking it - the "jargon" is mostly just silly to someone whose native variant of English is closer to English than American, and I don't find it especially confusing.
My reason for quoting Dancey is that this is yet another bit of evidence that there is no special correlation between preserving "canon" and commercial success. (Or critical success, for that matter, although what counts as critical success in RPGing is admittedly somewhat up for grabs.)
Except you created a thread asking how people used canon in their games.
You then proceeded to argue with people who said they liked canon, saying canon isn't useful and is a shackle on creativity. This thread is all about advocating dumping continuity.
The thread isn't "advocating" anything. And even if it were, it would have no causal significance. The chance of this thread being of zero interest or relevance to WotC is 100%.
But if someone says that it is selfish of me to want stuff that might deviate from canon, I am going to respond.
And if someone tells me that preserving canon is a necessary condition of quality fiction, well I'm going to respond to that too.
The question I have repeatedly asked, but haven't really got much of an answer to, is
why some RPGers value aligning their aesthetic endeavours to a commercial publisher's output. The closest I've received to an answer is "brand psychology", but that's an answer that makes sense from WotC's point of view, not from the RPGer's.