In truth, as Jako stated above, a sizable number of players have considerable misgivings about Terminal Directive, both with respect to its ineffectiveness as a standalone campaign experience, as well as the non-trivial number of cards in the box that are poorly balanced, require functional errata to even work as intended, or both. Furthermore, I promise you that the Board is far from the only player group to think that Netrunner would have benefitted from a more aggressive rotation policy, i.e. a smaller card pool than it has presently.
In truth, a sizeable number of player have considerable love for Terminal Directive, both with respects to its effectiveness as a stand-alone campaign experience, as well as the non-trivial number of cards in the box that are strong yet balanced, or utterly unique in the card pool.
My point here being that any expansion has its good cards and bad cards, and that you mileage may vary, and that there’s plenty of people going to be on both sides of this topic.
More importantly, I do not think any of this is sufficient reason to delete that part of the game from the game, on the grounds that it is all that we have, and part of Netrunner we all got a chance to buy from the store. My argument is that you are throwing out the baby with the bath water, and the cost is the size of the list of cards you can play in the game. It would have been better if you had expanded Netrunner instead, while curating the experience by monitoring and policing cards that upset the delicate balance of the game.
Nobody is being served either by deleting archetypes from the game, or cards that occupy a unique niche in the game. Nobody is being served either by bringing back cards that are way above the curve either, because that’s the kind of card that will diminish the pool of cards that are playable in comparison to the top of the power curve.
It is quite clear that I had expected more from this both in the content perspective as well as in the framing perspective. If you want to create a better single-core experience: Go for it. There’s definitely a crowd that likes to play that format. If you want to make this the standard way to play and diminish everyone’s card pool in doing so? Sorry, that sounds like a poor strategy. Your goal should be to let people play as diverse a list of decks as possible, while still remaining a balanced format. I feel you got the second part of that equation right (albeit with some slip-ups, but we’re all fallible), but at the cost of reducing deck diversity.
FFG also tried their hand at creating new formats, but they understood that people just want to play with their collection. That should be the flagship format, whilst cache refresh, core set only or draft are each supported. FFG also did the rotation only once, and the reason was two-fold: They wanted to create a better version of Netrunner, one where a handful of cards did not dominate the meta, mainly because they were made before they realized how powerful a card would end up being. The second reason is to make it easier for new players to join the game and make it affordable to enter Netrunner. I feel that with the death of the game, it is more important to cater to its existing player base, yet also accommodate to newer players.
The current rotation policy isn’t accommodating the game owners, and is too half-hearted an approach to get new players on-board, considering that you’ll need cards from the revised core set and about 10 datapacks in spin and genesis to cobble the system core together.