I'm not going to get into the "Fighter = Bodyguard" argument (though I reserve the right to jump in later if I want). Though I will say I have expressed it before and still hope they do away with hardcoded roles for particular classes in the next edition. That said, I did want to comment on the line of reasoning and blanket statements being used in the following statements...
Are you saying you can't "ROLE-play" balanced
characters? That's just patently wrong.
This wasn't at all what he was saying, but I think you know that already...
And if you aren't friends with the group then somehow that excuses one to be a selfish d-bag? I hope anyone who takes that view would not join public play. It's not exactly a behavior that's going to grow your customer base/game in any positive way.
Roleplaying out inter-party conflict, and even PvP events in the game does not auto-equate to "being a d-bag"... if that's who you are then you're going to find a way to be a d-bag no matter what the game rules do. As for public play, and whether it would or wouldn't grow the customer base... I would say it depends on the group, the customers participating and their willingness to explore these things and agreed upon social contract for how far PvP and inter-party conflict should go.
Your blanket statements seem to be painting with a pretty broad brush... one I would say is too broad since there are quite a few rpg's, like Smallville or Vampire, that have inter-party conflict and PvP and are both fun and quite popular with some people.
The game is also not, nor should it be designed for, PvP as that's an anti-social behavior. Inner-party conflict still works in 4E but only for short bursts. Prolonged PvP just is weird and very swingy. You also don't need to do "everything as a group", combat is where the entire group should be involved. Keeping players engaged is a keybecause there are too many other things to do than sit around playing audience to a gloryhound.
Here we go again... Inter-party conflict and PvP is not, in and of itself, an anti-social behavior. With people who want to play that type of game and are mature enough to handle it... it can be fun. I also don't agree everyone has to be in every combat. Keeping players engaged in no way equates to "MUST BE IN EVERY COMBAT".
Look, I've come to realize that different players are engaged by different things, and recognizing what engages a player is a trait of a good DM... not just throwing them all into every combat because it's something to do. I also know that my players are willing to be an audience for a small span of time if they in turn get equal time to interact with what engages them (and no, it's not always combat). I would even go further and say my players enjoy being the audience at times because it allows them to see a different aspect of the action, even if their character is not present.
What really needs to be addressed, IMO, is how a DM should divy up time, as well as cut back and forth and manage different encounters/scenes... as opposed to forcing everyone to go along for the combat ride... every time.