Well, LWD sold me a piece of software with a critical functionality, that is expected to be part of every modern piece of software, missing (namely "export") without even mentioning that it wasn't there. So I'm a bit hesitant in trusting them, as I've been burnt once already.
This is entirely your OPINION regarding what functionality is expected by users. As @Farling stated above, the survey results clearly present a very contradictory story. From this end, we have a few loud voices about export being required here on the forums and overwhelming results from the user community at large that state most users don’t want or care about it. If you were in our position, which data would you interpret as the most accurate reflection of what the user base as a whole really thinks about export?
The problem is, some of the these features were promised a long time ago (see Dubya's posts) and even advertised as selling points for the software.
Looking back at the original Kickstarter promises, there are only three things I spotted that we promised and don’t have in place yet. They are the content market, web-based player access, and calendars. The first two of those are being worked on, and the third was found to be flawed based on the feedback from the Beta team. We announced that discovery relatively soon after the Kickstarter, and we offered all backers full refunds a couple months after that. We had many more backers INCREASE their pledges than asked for refunds – I don’t remember the exact refund count, but I do remember it was no more than five. By the time we released V1.0, what we advertised exactly matched the actual product capabilities. So the only complaints that can be levied about unfulfilled promises at this point are those from Kickstarter backers. And those backers were given the opportunity to get a refund.
The Kickstarter backers who wanted calendars have been incredibly patient and understanding. Based on comments from various backers here in this thread alone, I can only conclude that their patience stems from (a) happiness with the functionality that exists, (b) perceived steady progress on all the features that we don’t have in place yet, and (c) satisfaction with our communication about the issues, problems, and choices we’ve faced along the way.
What I find very surprising is that the people who are most vocal and upset with things are those who purchased Realm Works after V1.0 was released. This includes people such as yourself and @Dark Lord Galen. We took great care to make sure that the website and all marketing information about Realm Works accurately reflected what was available in the product and clearly identified the things that were planned for addition in the future. So I just don’t understand how users with no valid claims to being misled (as far as I’m aware) are up in arms while those who DO have valid claims are patient and supportive. [Note: The situation with @Dubya is a separate matter from anyone who purchased the product based on how we portrayed the product on our website and elsewhere online.]
But then the results of the survey are not used as a strict development plan but are just a guideline and the wording in the update at least sounds a bit like the features people voted on might be moved up and down if it's covenient to do so. Then why do a survey at all, if the results are just a general guideline and you reserve the right to change the position of features on the list? It just feels off (and I know other people have commented on this as well already).
As I outlined earlier in this salvo of posts, there’s a huge difference between being beholden to the results, using the results as a guide, and ignoring the results altogether. Beholden to the results would mean that we HAVE to work on the #1 feature. It doesn’t matter if #2 is only a few hundredths of a point behind it. It also doesn’t matter is if the #1 feature will take us 10 times as long and requires the full attention of developers who are already focused on other tasks, resulting in no chance of getting the feature implemented for a long time. Using the results as a guide means looking at the top few results (in our case, the top three) and identifying which ones of those can be (a) implemented most easily and (b) completed by developers that aren't already committed to other tasks. And ignoring the results is just plain stupid, since it undermines the success of the product, so that’s not even an option to discuss.
The fact that journals came off on top of the most-wanted list just seems a bit too convenient. LWD is a business and they have to make money, so the features that are most beneficial to LWD as a company are those that either expand the user basis or will get more people to spend money on the software. Neither calenders nor export (or a lot of the other features) do that, but journals do.
Is it possible you’ve been watching a few too many conspiracy themed movies lately?

Of the top three requested features, two require extensive backend development work and one requires very little. In the pursuit of getting the content market and web-based access up and running, we have LOTS of backend work that needs to be completed. So the developers who know the backend stuff have to stay focused on those tasks. That leaves the one new feature that doesn’t entail lots of backend work as the best choice for us to work on right now. That task happens to be journals, since we already did 98% of the backend work a long time ago and merely need to get the UI work done now.
For the record, the #1 requested feature was Individual Player Reveal*. Features #2 and #3 were separated by 0.01 points, which is statistically irrelevant, meaning they were tied for second. One of those two was journals.
*This is the reason we announced in the update that we’d almost certainly be focusing on Individual Player Reveal next.