But the newer background features handle the edge cases easily by getting rid of the background features that require a reputation like noble or pirate. You get a feat, some ideas on backstory. When I create or modify a background feature it's going to be things like advantage in certain situations. It's never going to have issues like if you pull a It's a Wonderful Life where the PC with a noble background gets to see what life would be like if they were never born.
Well yeah, we know that the reaction to 2014 Backgrounds has been lackluster, so they changed gears. And presumably will continue to do so, because the player says "hey wow, I'm a pirate, it says I can do X" and the DM might say either "that's great, I can totally work that into my campaign set in the sands of Anauroch" or "yeah, uh, that's just not going to work, sorry."
And that's just not a workable scenario. My stance on this has been simple since my first post. If you don't want to work with a given background (or can't), then don't let someone take it in the first place. See, the backgrounds are the players telling you what kinds of things they want to see in the game, what directions they hope it goes into, and how they want their character to plug into the game- or, they just wanted certain proficiencies.
If it's the former, the issue comes down to if you're a DM who plans the game around the players, or one who expects the players to plan around the game. If it's the latter, it's
on the player if they randomly look at their sheet and remember "oh yeah, I'm a pirate! I can get us a ship!" without preamble- obviously, taking a background should involve a conversation with the DM and the player to set expectations.*
Now if you are a DM who doesn't plan their game around the players, absolutely, the 2014 backgrounds don't work. At which point you tell the players that fact, have them make custom backgrounds, and get on with playing.
*Someone upthread made a comment to the effect of they didn't see why they should work with the players to give them what they wanted. If you're that kind of DM, again, 2014 backgrounds aren't for you. But my counter to that is, why is this such a bad thing? Is your campaign really that inflexible? Why is it that way?
If your players are horrid, wretched goblins who take, take, take and demand more, why are you DMing for them?
Time for another one of my endless gaming stories: a friend of mine has his own custom game world that he's been fiddling with since high school. He has a lot of odd things in his setting that most of the players have never seen, since all of the campaigns have centered around one continent.
One day, a player who had fun with his Goliath character in 4e asked if he could play a Goliath. My friend said, without skipping a beat, "There's no place for Goliaths in my game". And I asked why is that? You have all these other strange and wonderful cultures and races (species) in your game. You just told me last week you're thinking about adding a nation of dragon-worshippers who think being part dragon is the coolest thing ever to this desert region. What's wrong with adding Goliaths to some mountain range? They could be giant-kin, descended from earth elementals, exiles from another dimension (his in-universe origin for Orcs and Goblins) or the product of magical experimentation. What do you mean there's no room for them?"
"Well, I don't like Goliaths."
"Ok, so say that then."
Ironically, in the latest version of his setting, "goliaths" are a subrace of his Oni race. Go figure.