If this "constant change" strategy was viable, then Hasbro would be doing it to all their boardgames. They don't. While I accept revisions and clarifications, at the core a solid game is still static. Settler's of Catan has been around for a while and rules options have been created, but at its core it's still the same game.
In terms of board games, the ones that have lasted the test of time, from checkers/chess, to monopoly and heck ... twister. They have one thing in common. There is no design/development involved. The rules are already set. It's just down to marketing and producing it. They may have some new way of packaging it (like replacing the money with electronics) but they don't need to come up with a new rules system. The reason is that game is self contained, will have no expansions, and is effectively neutral for players. At the start of the game, no player has the advantage. If anyone is given the advantage, it's because of luck. In the case of Chess, the only 'luck' is the ability to go first. In Monopoly, that could mean you get to properties first, but rarely will it prove to be that great of an advantage.
However, with a system that has customizable parts, be it a collectible card game, or a role playing game, it's harder to have that 'balance'. Also, when one of the core aspects of the game is ability to customize, there is a demand for more options.
Ultimately, D&D as a 'board game' that is a small, relatively self contained game that is evergreen is probably not going to work. How many board games that have been selling strong for a long time are recent inventions? How many of the new board games that aren't just old games repackaged actually stick around in the long run? I'm not sure if the market for D&D is big enough where it could become the next Risk.
---------
On an unrelated note:
Why they don't do 3 and 4 products at the same time:
If they were producing for two product lines at the same time, they'd need to have two teams, one working on 3x, one working on 4e. In a 'perfect world' the people that are working on a system are able to balance new stuff against the entirety of the existing system. Obviously that's going to be easier for the smaller system, but also for the people that have been working with that system for a while. If you had to work with two systems simultaneously, or even being moved from one to the other, it would become more likely that things can slip through. So, in order to make sure both products got their due, each would need it's own people working on it, at least from the mechanical perspective. I'm not sure if the potential for selling
new 3.5 material is enough incentive for WOTC to hire more people and/or reassign people working in other areas. Considering the ammount of used books (or books sold to retailers that have not been sold to customers) out there, odds are that WOTC wouldn't be making any money off the core 3.5 books anymore, which is probably part of the equation right there.
It just doesn't make sense for a single company to be producing two products that each require their own design & development teams in order to create products that are incompatible with each other and yet also targetted at the same niche market. It doesn't make financial sense. Rules-light/system independent is something that would make sense, but there is no reason that WOTC should produce new 3.5 content themselves, nor would I think people would want the finished product (since it would probably be better to come from a group that is actively testing and developping 3.5 instead of someone 'coming back to it'.)
Honestly though, the people who feel that WOTC don't care ... what do you
want them to do? And since time travel isn't possible, that means going forward? Undoing 4e isn't a possibility. They can't just scrap 4e and go back to doing 3.5, besides it not making financial sense to abandon 4e now, there would likely need to be some time before new products for 3.5 would come out as you at least need the normal development cycle time before they can crank new stuff out if it only goes into the pipeline now. What changes could they possibly make
at this time that would satisfy people? I know the pdf policy is definitely one thing they
can change that shows they care. However,
if they have some sort of new digital distribution methods that they
hope is harder to pirate ... they would be shooting themselves in the foot to leave the content available in pdf format, since pirates
are using those pdfs to create the pirated pdfs that are floating around.
The pdf issue I understand. But those that feel that WOTC/Leeds have just told the anti-4e crowd that he 'doesn't care about them' ... what would be required to show that they do care. Ultimately though ... they are making 4e, and if you don't like it, they probably can't change your mind about that. Producing something other than 4e, unless it's something like minis or dungeon tiles or rules-lite high-fluff books, isn't really a viable option for them. So, criticism from people that have made it quite clear they want no part in what you are selling isn't necessarily what is going to get you customers. They can't redesign 4e from the ground up, so there is only so much flexibility they can have. It is probably better to admit defeat to Paizo for those that want to stick with 3x (and hope they continue playing.) In the long run, if there is another radical change, they'll be effectively marketting to all existing and former D&D players again. Even if it's a system change, it's easier to market to someone that is 'in the loop' as far as RPGs are concerned.
If someone is playing pathfinder, or DM'ing pathfinder ... they are a lot more likely to be in contact with someone that knows about what's happening with D&D than someone that is completely out of roleplaying. In that sense "as long as they are playing D&D" is a way of looking at those who aren't playing in to 4e as at least someone that has a good chance of
hearing your marketting pitch, even if they are unlikely to listen to it.
