Looks like it's a common ideia.
I feel qualified to comment on this since I'm pretty low-rated.
I started playing 1. d4 not too long after I started taking chess seriously. In fact I'd almost never used 1. e4. The reason I played 1. d4 as a beginner is because lots of my opponents would try a Scholar's Mate pattern as black; playing 1. d4 immediately blocks the a2-g1 diagonal, preventing them from doing this.
Furthermore, the d-pawn is already protected by the queen, which actually makes the game easier to play for beginners, in my opinion (at least when playing those at around the same level), because it's one less pawn to worry about.
I've yet to switch to 1. e4. I just can't get used to the more dynamic positions that it yields, and I don't know the openings as well as I know the Queen's Gambit. So, I'm a weak-intermediate who's always played 1. d4, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
I feel qualified to comment on this since I'm pretty low-rated.
I started playing 1. d4 not too long after I started taking chess seriously. In fact I'd almost never used 1. e4. The reason I played 1. d4 as a beginner is because lots of my opponents would try a Scholar's Mate pattern as black; playing 1. d4 immediately blocks the a2-g1 diagonal, preventing them from doing this.
Furthermore, the d-pawn is already protected by the queen, which actually makes the game easier to play for beginners, in my opinion (at least when playing those at around the same level), because it's one less pawn to worry about.
I've yet to switch to 1. e4. I just can't get used to the more dynamic positions that it yields, and I don't know the openings as well as I know the Queen's Gambit. So, I'm a weak-intermediate who's always played 1. d4, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
I know that feel, I play better with 1.d4 than with 1.e4, but a lot of qualified people say that you should start with 1.e4. I know that in the future, when building my repertoire I'll be a 1d4 player, my doubt is if I can start straight away with it or should begin with 1e4 to train my tactics and handling in open games.
play d4 the london system that`s easy! for a beginner
Someone who is a rank beginner can start off with 1. e4 and/or 1.d4
and/or both. Probably both is best.
I believe d4 and e4 yield the same result with one difference. d4 often gives closed positions and dull games.
It's not that important. I played e4 for years, but what will you do if your opponent plays d4? You will have to know something anyway.
If you do play d4 and intend to have a decent game, be careful with isolani positions. It will be a while before you can manage those.
thank you!
I started playing d4 as soon as I learned a few basic lines from it. I'm not a big supporter of all those "You should only play 1. e4 until you gain some experience" suggestions, I think it's best to start playing everything as early as possible to gain a lot of experience in different types of positions.
I still play everything, just for the fun of it (I find playing the same limited set of openings over and over boring), even though I know that my strength suffers from it. 
Anyone can play 1. d4 in his/her first chess game. Chess is just a game. You don't need a rating system to play 1. d4 or anything else.
Although recommendations vary, C. J. Purdy, Susan Polgar, along with many others recommend d4 over e4 to beginners, intermediates and anyone who doesn't want to devote much time to studying the openings. For example, the Colle and London systems are easy to learn and quite playable with minimal study.
I think one reason others recommend e4 is that the games often become tactical faster than d4 games, which helps exercise those necessary skills.
I play d4. I'm maybe 1200. I like to keep things simple. I play the London as white, the French against e4 and Purdy's All Purpose System against almost everything else. I think you should play what you are comfortable with and not worry about tying your opening to your rating. d4 is fine at any level.
There is no rating. I probably started playing it when I was 1400-1500. When I took a look at the Queen´s gambit on serious level many concepts like "keeping the tension" finally made sense to me. I know this may sound stereotypical but 1.d4 positions are much more positional by nature and can really improve your game. I probably studied 1.d4 games for over 3-4 months and learned a lot. I think everyone must know something about 1.d4, it is just general chess culture.
I've seen different answers to that question. Some say 1.D4 games need a positional knowledge that intermediates shouldn't been focusing at. 2000+ ? 1800+ ? Or anybody could play it after passing the begginer mark ? (1200+)