I read this as: You think that this alternative-to-screencasts is great, but you'd pay more money if it also made… screencasts. ;)
There's absolutely nothing wrong with liking screencasts. But if you want a screencast - a thing with video and audio clips that conveys information through voice - you want a different product, right? There are existing products that help you make screencasts.
The problem with bolting screencasting features onto this product is that it muddies the message ("we need an alternative to screencasting, one that also does screencasting!") and really threatens to overcomplicate the software, both the UX and the back-end.
Not necessarily. With this product, the user controls the pace at which they proceed through the tutorial. That doesn't mean that it needs to eschew audio and video.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with liking screencasts. But if you want a screencast - a thing with video and audio clips that conveys information through voice - you want a different product, right? There are existing products that help you make screencasts.
The problem with bolting screencasting features onto this product is that it muddies the message ("we need an alternative to screencasting, one that also does screencasting!") and really threatens to overcomplicate the software, both the UX and the back-end.