check out about 14, 15 mins in when Expertise comes up...these feats are tests to see what group is more prevalent A(have to have it) B(Don't want it forced on them)
Actually, they said nothing of the sort. They said nothing about a "don't want it forced on them" group.
The question was:
What are we going to see to speed up combat at paragon and above?
Expertise was given as an example.
We are paying attention to times when it looks like maybe the ... some people's experiences suggesting that the math of the game isn't working out quite right. And so we're implementing with those feats we've implemented a solution that is kind of a stopgap. We intend to watch and observe and see whether those feats become everyone's got to take that or you're just stupid which a lot of feats used to be in third edition and if that becomes the case, we'll look at a more comprehensive solution for the game. We don't want to rush into a solution that might be just as broken as the problem that we're trying to solve. We don't want to overeact to discussion on the message boards that might not be representative of what everybody's experiencing but we do want to pay attention to those things and make sure we're addressing them in a reasonable way.
First off, they admitted that they were trying to solve a problem here and they indicated that it was a math problem and a problem with the speed of combat at Paragon and above (they didn't say exactly what the problem was).
Second, this "wait and see" philosophy appears to be a reaction to the fact that so many people dislike the implementation. It's a "Oh yeah, we intended it to be a stopgap measure, yeah, yeah, that's the ticket, we intended to come up with a more permanent fix in the future".
One does not intentionally put a fix into the game system and intend for it to be replaced by errata at a later time (the very next sentences in the podcast were about a better errata system, hence the implication). That makes zero sense.
One fixes it the way they thought was best right away. In this case, the solution fixes a portion of the math and teed off part of the gaming community by making the fixes feats. Opps.
Now, they are backpedaling to say that they intended for the feats to be temporary and replaced by a more comprehensive solution if a large part of the gaming community takes them. Of course a large portion of the gaming community is going to take these feats. Everyone? No. Many people. Hell, yeah.
If their original intention was to find this out, good betting money at the time would have been that the answer was yes (+3 to hit, of course yes), so why not just put a better solution in right away? They could always errata any solution later.
It's pretty obvious. They put the fix in for a math bug dealing with the speed of higher level combat (they don't specify exactly which ones, but to hit is obvious from Expertise and possibly too many monster hit points which they discuss later in the broadcast). Good job WotC. But, they errored by making it a feat (not such a good job, but at least they tried). Now, they are trying to make it sound as if the feat idea is only temporarily if it seems like everyone wants to take the feats (a second mistake because it sounds illogical and hence disingenuous, you don't give people candy and say if everyone likes the candy, we'll give you a better candy later, you go straight to the better candy).
From my perspective, their hearts are in the right place, but they are going about it the wrong way. They are especially going about it the wrong way if this "more comprehensive solution for the game" ends up requiring people to buy another book.