Note, Monte's comment on consumer opinion was in a very specific context of a very specific (closed) playtest. I don't know what's his general stance on such matters, but it's actually impossible to infer from this particular article of his.

True enough, and doubly so now that I realize I was thinking of longtime TSR designer David 'Zeb' Cook when I made my rant about 'the first generation of game designers', and not Monte Cook. D'oh!

I'm just curious - is anyone familiar with how the Pathfinder beta worked. It's widely regarded as a successful beta. Did the process run differently or did the people have a different attitude then what's been happening here?

I heard a lot about Paizo ignoring problems players had. People were like, "Hey fighters still suck and here's some math to prove why," which was completely ignored. Fighters are a trap class in Pathfinder, a pre-existing problem that wasn't addressed at all.

What Paizo was successful at doing was drumming up fan support from all the people who felt 'betrayed' by WotC. They have an exceptional PR department.

What any of this has to do with DH2 is a mystery.

I actually has to agree with this. Fighter still sucks and at least 4th edition made fighter a actual choice again. So far the only system that I know of now that is doing well would be Radiance. Their fighters are as good as the spell caster classes. That being said I would also agree with cps in that why are we talking about pathfinder?