First of all, I'm not talking about broken mechanics. I'm talking about the myth that a lot of people somehow want all classes to be balanced when it comes to combat and damage.
Now what I am about to post is from my own experience and the experiences of those I have gamed with for many years. I have been playing RPG's for over 27 years now. I am actively engaged in Pathfinder Society and with various Cons. In all my years, I have yet to come across a player, except on internet forums, who wants this so called balance that 4th edition gave us. The people that I have gamed with do not care about DPR, nor do they measure contributing to the game with numbers. These people aren't worried about choosing that right stat line up, or that race class combo, or even that special selection of certain feats that synergize perfectly. They are also not the people who want all their abilities to equally work at optimal efficiency against everything.
These people choose classes based on a concept they have so they will choose those feats that people on these forums discourage against taking because they aren't optimal numerically. These same people don't mind when the barbarian does 56 points of damage while the rogue does 25 because they aren't in a hurry to win combat nor do they mind if the barbarian does a lot more damage.
This is how I feel about the game. Concept is what's important to me and sometimes my concept is based around combat and sometimes it's not. I have found that a heavy emphasis on balanced combat leads to option bloat. This attitude promotes the selection of feats and backgrounds that only grant a numerical combat advantage, so what we get is loads of feats and backgrounds that are considered sub-optimal and are therefore discouraged.
From my own experience, the balance issue is not an actual issue at all. I'm sure your miles may vary, and it may be an issue for you but it's not for me and the many people that I deal with.