I don't get the strain of fandom (generally, not just with Dark Sun) that dislikes when existing IP is revisited, reinvented, and/or recontextualized. Sometimes (a lot of times) it goes horribly wrong. But I am so glad that, for example, that I got the Rings of Power instead of nothing, or the Star Wars sequel trilogy instead of nothing. And I am pleased as hell when a revisited IP is genuinely great like, say, Andor.
What does a gutted Dark Sun setting cause you to lose? Surely it would have at least some good nuggets of setting detail and workable defiling rules, right? Even the ill advised Red Dawn ripoff of it looked like it was gonna have a couple of cool city states. In this case as in others, I would have preferred something to nothing.
Not to dogpile on the pushback you've gotten in this thread, I realize people's preferences differ. Let me, I guess, concur with you that I love the setting and would very much like to see it done well.
Because a recontextualization changes stuff. Like ... I hate every epiosde of a fantasy/scifi show where the toy with the Idea that the whole show was just a dream/hallucination/Illusion and nothing is real. What does that do? It just makes the whole show not matter.
And what comes later ruins the things before it. That's why the last season if Game if Thrones ruined the show for everybody and nobody talks about it anymore. That's why nobody is angry about Star Trek V or the Prequel Star Wars movies anymore but at NewTrek and the Star Wars Sequels.
There are several reasons why it can't be ignored:
1. If the new products are bad and successful, all the following products will continue to be bad, because they don't see a reason to change it, so the franchise I love will get more bad stuff thatbInwill not be able to enjoy.
2. If the new products are bad and unsuccessful, my franchise could die and I get no new products at all or have to why 15 years, before I get something new (like with Star Trek).
3. The new product will start to erase the consensus memory of the old stuff. Like, because of New Trek it is nearly impossible to find writing advice on the structure of "classical" Star Trek Episodes (TOS, TNG, DS9, Voy, Ent) ...
4. It takes a mental effort to ignore new bad stuff the moment you take knowledge of it. Like ... knowing that J.K.. Rolling is a transphobe makes it way harder to enjoy any Harry potter related content and
5. also I don't want to support evil people and don't want other to support evil people.
6. In RPGs its fragmentates the player base. It takes time and energy to convince people who maybe only know the new stuff to try the old stuff.
7. Public opinion ... like NewTrek is about crying people in spaceships who solve everything with big battles - that is what people, who didn't grow up with Star Trek now associate with it ... and you don't want to be attached to that kind of thing si you can't call yourself a Trekkie in public anymore or a Harry potter fan, because that would be a public statement in support of transphobia ...
I know it sounds silly, but new stuff for a franchise you like can literally ruin it for you.
In a social and cultural vacuum, new stuff shouldn't dimish the enjoyment if the old stuff you have, but we don't live in a social and cultural vacuum. It takes a lot of mental energy and willpower to just ignore new stuff that contradicts the old stuff.
To be fair, I think it is easier in RPGs tondonthat, because what matters is what happens at the table ... but just the outcry after the very disappointing spelljammer book shows, that people in general can't just ignore when bad stuff happens to their entertainment franchises..