I think there is one point that gets lost in the scrum here.
4e is the first edition of D&D that got
better as time went on.
Every other edition did not. What are the big complaints about 3e? Splat bloat. What's the primary point of advice given whenever someone has a problem? Go core only. Most of the issues with 3e got exacerbated by later books, not resolved.
2e suffered exactly the same problem. Massive splat bloat that makes 3e look absolutely svelte in comparison. Heck, IIRC, TSR produced more 2e Boxed Sets than WOTC produced hardcovers for 3e.
1e also. Look at the reaction to Unearthed Arcana or Dungeoneers Survival Guide or Wilderness Survival Guide from 1e fans. Most consider them to be fair to poor in terms of what they bring to game play.
4e is different though. 4e started
rough. I totally agree with that. I don't think it's quite the steaming pile that others think, but, I won't deny that it had some pretty serious issues. Fortunately for myself, just like every other edition, I waited about a year before getting into the game. I had to finish up my 3e campaign and then we went off and played some other stuff for a while, before getting into 4e.
And our first 4e game was
Raiders of Oakhurst . Well done module that "got" 4e much better than early WOTC modules. And, since we were a year or so after the release of 4e, much of the hashing back and forth of the Errata was done. I never saw constant nerfing because the errata was largely complete by that time. Monster stats and Skill Challenge DC's were already fixed. That sort of thing.
To sum up, judging 4e on the criteria of earlier editions - that the edition gets worse as time goes on until it collapses under the weight of its own splat frenzy - doesn't really apply. WOTC has been very, VERY good about keeping a tight lid on splats and additional rules.