In this case there seems to be a fair bit of difference between two things "portions" might want:There definitely is a portion of the market that wants a complex, highly tactical game with tons of fiddly bits.
* A game with tons of build choices (including spells and magic items, so "build" here means "everything before combats") that really matter - to the point where the actual game can be trivialized by making the "right" such choices
* A game with a ton of build choices that secretly don't matter that much, and instead open new tactics during play. It is by making tactical choices during play you make the game easier or harder, but only slightly (compared to the first type of game)
If 3E is the first kind of game it can be argued 4E is the second.
If the reports are true PF2 could be much more of the second type of game than the first.
The problem here might be that players might say they love lots of build choices, but actually don't want choices (including buffs cast pre-combat, and magic items you select as gear) that don't have a large impact on their character's power level...
The problem might be if Paizo have created a game for the second audience, despite their existing fans liking the first.
In this case we can end up with a game nobody* likes; PF1 fans for the lack of impactful build choices, 5E fans for the scary levels of fiddly.
*) Except surviving 4E fans maybe