Modifying rules only makes sense if it is to improve gameplay. Larian's hybrid DOS/D&D is still a mess and far inferior to a strict implementation. Until a year ago this was still a theory, however Solasta has been released since. We can compare 5e implementation directly, and the single aspect of Solasta that was praised even on negative reviews was the gameplay, whereas it is still the most criticized aspect of BG3. I agree with @GM4Him that this might drive D&D players away, and they are far more numerous than DOS players, that I believe would've bought the game anyway just by being TB.
Solasta is a VERY niche game, I'll never buy it, because it doesn't have a real plot whatsoever, despite being one of those fabled D&D players myself. You cannot say that gameplay there is great, if all encounters there are predetermined therefore can be tweaked to make them more fun as opposed to go wherever you want games. Criticizing gameplay and refusing to buy the game because certain home rule was added or some other rule was not included is a totally different behaviour, don't you think? BG3 has already sold more copies (over 2M+ just in Steam) in EA state than legendary BG2 in 20 years, P:K, and P:WotR combined. WotR, which GM4Him called successful, in comparison sold a meager 500k+ in Steam. So, your extreme point of view doesn't make sense.
