Which, to me, is an odd take. Because when I'm looking at 5E stuff I get no sense whatsoever that they're trying to have an opinion on how the game should be played. Quite the opposite. It's like they took pains to specifically avoid having any opinion at all how the game should be played. It vaguely waves at several disparate styles of play and does none of them well at all. A common refrain about 5E is that it's the 2nd best edition at several things but isn't the best at being anything except popular. It seems to entirely lack any defining identity whatsoever. I wish the game had some specific goal or identity it was pushing. At least then I could like it or dislike it for what it's trying to do. As it stands it seems to only want to be as bland and milquetoast as possible.
It could be that my perception is mistaken.
However -from answers to rules questions; what's considered "natural" language and intuitive; choices for how to errata or change something; an so-forth -my perception is that there is a particular way that the folks writing the game see it and use it.
If they do, I get the impression that their way differs greatly from pretty much any group with which I've game.
Certainly, there is a wide variety of approaches to rpgs. So, that's not unusual. But what sticks out in particular is some of the "fixes" and actual game design (rules errata, design of feats, changes in how the game works going forward) give the impression that I am playing the game very differently than how the people writing and designing it see it working.
I say that because some of the changes and "fixes" to things go in a direction which I don't feel addresses the underlying issue. So, I'm confused about how some of the improvements are seen as better.
It would help to understand the ideas behind why those changes are occurring. It's difficult to get excited about 5.1 when I feel as though I don't understand the mentality behind the design direction.
Occasionally, even when information is put out, I don't even feel like I'm speaking the same language (which has been true during late 4e and during most of 5e). The words being said seem to mean something different to the people saying the things than how I understand them as a listener.
Maybe that's an issue on my end. Either way, the result is that I have a lot of confusion and uncertainty about the product.