Quote Originally Posted by strangebloke View Post
I don't believe them because these corporate practices have far simpler justifications that have been shown hundreds of times over many industries. Occam's razor.
"We can make money doing this" and "this is better design" are not mutually exclusive. You could argue that was the very principle that led us to 5e in the first place. Or did you forget that "corporate practices" gave us this edition to begin with? Does that only matter when they make something you don't like?

Quote Originally Posted by strangebloke View Post
"Leaving something on their online store" doesn't seem to be "patently unrealistic" to me. Neither does making monsters with the same basic template they've been using for five years in addition to shaking things up sometimes.
They gave you the reasons they no longer want to push the old design and you refuse to believe them. That leaves us with nowhere to go. It's unrealistic because continuing to sell the old books would undermine their stated reasons for changing the design in the first place.

Quote Originally Posted by strangebloke View Post
He is responding to a question about whether WotC will fall into a cycle of iterating quickly as a cash grab. He says no. He calls SCAG "evergreen" when promoting it. The intent from these statements is clear, and their current stance is clearly going back on that point. As I said, its not wholly a bad thing to have change - but attempting to force people to change so that you can sell more books remains a cash grab.
Without context, his 11-word tweet can be interpreted in multiple different ways. Evergreen as an introduction to FR? Notable places? History of the setting? Races and backgrounds? There's a lot of ways to take that beyond the "we promise that no subclass in this book will ever be updated" that you chose to land on.