I think both of you are right, but only in a very limited environment.
I think it's wrong to assume that there is a transgression between the D&D editions.
Demand for games is not so much dictated by "open-mindedness", as by need.
If one system works well for one's purposes, why switch?
And, then, why switch to D&D 3e, 4e, 5e?
3e books were interesting because of the OGL.
But 4e books? The already flawed ruleset from 3e was made even worse (think of the famous "Mach 3" elves, as the textbook example),
and the overall quality of the supplemental products, and product support in general wasn't great.
So, either as a newbie and as a seasoned oldschooler, why should I pick 4e, or, for that matter,
any game that is neither different nor better than other, existing products?
The real issue, as I see it, is that, since around mid-3e, after the release of, I think, "Mysteries of the Moon Sea",
Wizbro has simply put out bad products.
I don't know how many of you really check new RPG publications, but, just for example,
one of the biggest strengths of the Paizo books is that they are brilliantly edited.
Or, the new Dark Heresy books: Good editing, good art, very good writing, very condensed and very usable content.
Take against that any book Wizbro has put out recently. Like "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft", where the final chapter was missing from the printed book.
And, the prize!
The usual D&D starter set, which contains of three rulebooks, two setting books, and possibly one adventure module.
That's between 130 $ and 180 $ here that we are talking to have everything we need to play on a most basic level.
Show me one person under 30 years of age that can spare such a sum for a board game that might not even be that great
compared to others.
In comparison, the dreadful "The One Ring" game cost me 50 €, all in all, and I have everything I need to play.
What is a student, or a parent for his kid, more likely to pick, would you say?
Wooohooo, that got longer than I thought.