The really funny thing about folks dutifully trotting out the old "well ACTUALLY Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition commercially underperformed because it's just tabletop World of Warcraft" line every single time I discuss the economic realities of 4E's publication is the cyclical nature of those complaints.
When 4E came out in 2008, people complained it was trying to turn D&D into tabletop World of Warcraft because it has explicit class roles.
When 3E came out in 2000, people complained it was trying to turn D&D into tabletop Diablo because it has feat trees and magic item affixes.
When 1E came out in 1977, people unfavourably compared it to the then-nascent medium of computer games because the Dungeon Master's Guide contains too many tables; they probably would have called it a tabletop roguelike if not for the fact that the term "roguelike" did not yet exist, the publication of Rogue being three years in the future.
We have been doing the "[edition of D&D] in some respect vaguely resembles [computer game], and that's bad" thing for fifty goddamn years. We've been doing it since practically the very moment computer games existed for comparison to them to be made.
(For the folks about to well-actually that Rogue was technically only one year in the future on account of the fact that 1E's Dungeon Master's Guide was delayed until 1979: I see you.)
