The question is 'over what?'. If it's over a promise that turned out to be a lie, that's one thing. If it over the fact that Obsidian dared to mention the holy name of Baldur's Gate in their pitch and then didn't create a perfect clone, that's something completely different and frankly silly.
Did I lie or mislead in my El Camino example? No. Does that mean people wouldn't be upset if they expected a Detroit Dinosaur and were given something you'd see in Boys in Tha Hood?
You are confusing "Obsidian can prove legally or rationally" with "how the consumer feels." How the consumer feels trumps anything. Everything. I don't really care whether you agree with that because it's reality. People who feel ripped off ARE ripped off, at least from their perspective. Obsidian doesn't have to defend themselves legally in civil court, they have to win the perception argument in the court of public opinion. Saying "we didn't lie and you guys are stupid," even in corporate PC speak, won't do that.
So guilty or not, let's condemn Obsidan and burn them for their sins?
I'm not suggesting anyone, let alone the two of us that the contraction "let's" implies, condemn Obsidian. But that's markedly different than saying "people will be condemning Obsidian."
Technically, they mentioned 3 games. Technically, the words "we have the DnD license!" were never mentioned.
Technicalities don't matter when all it takes for someone who feels burned to write a "game is shit, 0/10" Metacritic score and bad mouth it to all of their friends.
The issue revolves around the combat system. Frankly, I didn't like it and simply stopped playing the beta. Now some might say it's because the new system isn't as good as BG's system (didn't like it either). Others might say it's because the new system isn't good, period. I assume (well, hope) that the system is easy to fix and it's only a question of tweaking, time, and patience. If they fix it, would the fact that it's not like BG still be a problem? I doubt it.
It may, it may not. You know what would have prevented it from being a problem? Not giving specific games, maybe not even the "IE" genre, in their pitch. Or, conversely, making an IE clone first, then evolving the system to take on more experimental design choices a game or so down the road.
They cant "legitimately" feel that they were mislead if they, in fact, weren't mislead. Other a specific promise was made or it wasn't. It's as simple as that.
Someone can legitimately feel things that aren't true. A fundie can legitimately feel that God is punishing America for allowing gays by releasing Justin Bieber upon the world. That's the wonderful thing about feelings and belief - it doesn't require jack shit for them to exist and do active harm.
And nothing, in the history of anything, is ever "as simple as that."
Not if the game is well received and sells well.
True, if the amount of positive responses are loud and powerful enough to overpower the negativity. I'd still say that is a problem for Obsidian to combat that negativity in one way, shape or form, or at the least it is a risk they are mitigating at this point.