Sure, what else should they say, of course the dev diaries are "confident"... Nevertheless I think they certainly have underestimated the challenges related with this decision, just look at all these discussions concerning the Maps (no more Pangea, TSL) or the acctual Gameplay implications (how or what does the AI choose as a new Civ).
Leader Switching could have shaken up the gameplay too, don't you think?"Oh, man, I really wish we'd sapped all the human interest out of our game instead of having a really good idea that would shake up the gameplay from previous titles!"
Yes, it would have shaken my preorder right out of my cart.
Very opposed to leader switching. I don't want my opponent changing their avatar mid-game; it disrupts one's connection to one's opponents. IMO leaders and the player's relationships to them are a strong part of Civ's brand identity, and it would have been a grave mistake to throw that out the window. (That being said, I think the devs' idea that players identify with the leader they're playing as is mistaken--I don't--but I do think the player's relationship with the other leaders is very important.)
Fair enough, let's see how many enthusiastic Continents Only and Civ Switching Fans will end up buying this game after all... 
Of course people associate themselves and opponents with both leaders and civs. So it's important to keep at least one of those entities (one of the things Humankind does bad is having those generic leaders with their names rarely used in the interface). And if choosing which one to keep, keeping leaders is an obvious choice:
Not so obvious to me. Having to face a Napoleon who leads the Incas, that's something I can not relate at all with. But again, that's a matter of personal opinion, and this has been discussed over and over again in this forum. So Firaxis has made their choice, let's see if/ or how they are able to fix all the challegens that go along with this.
I disagree completely. So far in this series, people have tended to describe themselves as playing a civ, and then tending to describe themselves as playing against leaders (though this is less strong). This is why people enjoy playing as Russia or as America rather than as Catherine or as Washington, but enjoy playing against Gandhi or Shaka.
+1 , probs why Civ Morphing and a free for all leader with or without the fluff will not cut it.
I tend to see myself as civ and rivals as leaders, but if forced to choose between persistent leaders or persistent civs, I'd rather have persistent leaders so I can keep track of who I'm playing against and their mein and agenda don't fluctuate wildly from one part of the game to the next.
I totally agree. And that's exactly why Civ7 presents your leader on all diplomacy screens - to have strong association not only for opponents, but for yourself as well.
To clearify that: This disrupts your connection (and may be that of other civers) to your opponents, but not the connection of civers who don´t share that opinion about their opponents. The opponents for civers who don´t share this opinion are the other civs in the different phases of their evolution and the different leaders are only representing those civs.
This is how I view it. I think Civ 6 took it to the next step with agendas. Playing against Barbarossa's Germany was way different than how you played against Ludwig's Germany. Ludwig could care less about how many city-states I befriend.
I'd agree for who I'm playing against, but for myself the whole appeal of civ is picking say the Aztecs and playing them through from the start of history to today. I don't think the fabric of the series for me lends itself to either being changed mid game
