To the people seeing here changes were necessary to make the game more accessible or palatable to casual players, we have evidence that you're just wrong. 5e is already the most popular version of d&d. It is the first system of a huge number of people. A lot of folks seem to just equate RAW with a hardcore experience but 5e is the system that made d&d mainstream. There is no reason to think that changing it is going to meaningfully boost sales to people who don't like complex rules, because those people probably aren't looking at this game to begin with. And I do not get why so many people are giving Larian the benefit of the doubt with these changes when they are entirely in line with every other design decision they've made up to this point.
5e is very popular, yes, but 5e wouldn't work in single player videogame form and most who will play BG3 will either play single player or with other new people who have no idea what D&D is. At a D&D table if you catastrophically screw up your character there are experienced people around you and a human DM who will tell you why your character isn't working...that doesn't work in a videogame. If you are a new player and you don't know D&D and make an inept character you are just screwed and there is nobody there to explain anything to you. Larian can't(and really shouldn't) treat a videogame like a tabletop pen and paper RPG. They are entirely different mediums that work in entirely different ways. There is also a limited overlap in audience...most videogame players don't play tabletop RPGs and vice versa.
I generally agree with your points here, particularly about the danger of making an inept character without anyone around to explain to you why, but I'm not convinced that was all of Larian's concern with these changes. For instance removing the stat requirement for multi-classing. In my (admittedly limited) view that actually makes it easier to fall into a trap because now new players don't have the guard rail of at least having a +1 in the new class's primary stat. I think their motive, as it seems to be with a lot of their decisions, is just that they think these changes will be cool and they don't care about balance beyond the most technical considerations required for a playable game. I also disagree that 5e wouldn't work as a video game because Solasta exists. And I'm not particularly a fan of D&D but I've felt far more interest in replaying Solasta than I've had to replay BG3,at least in early access. Hell, I've played BG3 for 141 hours and Solasta for 126, and I've owned BG3 since basically the start of early access. So 5e can totally work in a video game and they didn't need to change as much as they did, even though BG3 absolutely was right to make certain changes. I just don't think that a lot of these changes were made to accomodate new players so much as to indulge Larian's whims.
Also, this is a nitpick but your last point I think is substantively wrong. Maybe most video game players don't play ttrpgs, but that's just down to scale since the number of video game players really is huge compared to ttrpg players. But going vice versa, I don't think I've ever encountered a ttrpg player who doesn't also play video games. On that end the overlap is such that ttrpg players are probably just another circle inside the video game player's circle.
