I don't think players who have known and loved previous Baldur's Gate games want to find a BG3 designed in exactly the same way. In any case, it is not my case and I do not think it would make much sense in 2020.

On the other hand, I am convinced that many of these players are afraid to realize that the name Baldur's Gate 3 was only used to profit commercially from the fame of the previous games of the franchise without real will to create the continuation of this saga or to start a new one that would be worthy of the previous one.

Everyone was able to realize that the gameplay we saw was much more like what a D: OS3 could be than what some players expected from a BG3.
Even if it was an alpha version, Larian showed with this gameplay that it was based on what he knew how to do and had already done.
It seems to me that this is a very bad first signal.

This means that Larian:
- or is unable to do anything other than D: OS
- or that he does not have the will to do so.

The story ? Can't comment now.
Of course, the history of Bhaalspawns is over. That said, absolutely nothing prevents us from making a sequel that could really be part of the Baldur's Gate saga.
However, it seems to me that Swen Vincke indicated in an interview that there would be no connection between the previous stories and BG3.
Second bad signal.

D&D rules?
Bioware and TSR had endeavored to reproduce the AD&D rules as faithfully as possible (and not the 2nd edition as I read it here) so that the experience of this game is as close as possible to the game experience around a table.
Successful bet!
At the time, Baldur's Gate was simply the most incredible visual experience we had ever imagined in the world of AD&D. We were really there!
Again, it is difficult to objectively comment on compliance with D&D5 rules with this BG3. Still, the management of fights and their visual rendering, the movement of characters and interactions with objects are there, in my opinion, far too close to a D: OS.
Even if Larian has made real efforts on the adaptation of the D & D5 rules (I have no doubt about it), personally, I never had the impression during all the gameplay of being really in a D&D game. I just felt like I was in a D: OS game, of which we would have changed a few rules to create the illusion of a D&D game.
Conversely, it suffices to look at a few minutes Solasta: Crown of the magister to feel very quickly in a D&D game. It's just obvious.

These are, I believe, all of these ingredients that contribute to some players' fears about using the Baldur's Gate franchise.
I also think it would have been better to leave the legend Baldur's Gate for what it is and what it still represents in the minds of players and create a D&D game with a completely different name.

Let there be no mistake. There is no question of saying that BG3 will be a bad game because some of us believe that it does not deserve its name and / or because it is too close to D: OS.
It is simply a question of saying that seeing the direction taken by Larian with this BG3, we are really entitled to wonder why it is called Baldur's Gate 3.

Why borrow the name of such a video game monument and want to make a sequel (BG ... 3!) if Larian absolutely does not seem to want (or be able to) do anything other than a semblance of D&D game with D: OS gameplay?
And I must admit that I see no other reason than for marketing and commercial interests. But I only ask to be wrong ...

I understand the position of a company in relation to this but in this case that we really put a name to all these worries and tensions: hypocrisy and opportunism.