That's quite incorrect. If RPG gamers disliked change, then 3E would have failed!
We have to look to other reasons.
Gamers do dislike change.
However, that is tempered by the fact that they also want to play the best D&D possible and to see new stuff constantly. We loved 2e. It had its issues but we were willing to overlook them because the majority of play time was still fun. However, in order to keep things interesting we needed a constant influx of new material. We needed new spells, new classes, new kits, new adventures, new campaign worlds. Near the end those things all dried up. There was nothing new about the game at all. Which means all we did is see the flaws with the game day in and day out. To the point where my group had nearly fallen apart because we were almost sick of playing the same game with nothing new. Which is rather amusing given that nearly every book that had come out in the preceding years we didn't use any part of because they were too different for us and we didn't want that much change.
After a couple of years worth of nothing new being added to the game, the introduction of a new edition by a new company seemed like a godsend. After all, the promise was that it would fix the issues we had with 2e while simultaneously promising a new company with a fresh outlook. We knew the problems with 2e were deep enough that an addon book simply wouldn't be able to solve it. So, we played the new edition. I'm different from most people in that I love change. Even when it is bad change. I'd rather see things continue to change than stay the same. However, nearly half my group stopped playing when 3e came out. They played a couple of sessions and just couldn't get into the new edition of the game. It was too different, might as well go back to the old way of doing things. None of the changes made sense, they'd say. So, we just introduced new people who had never played 2e to join us. They loved it.
When 3.5e came out, there was equal grumbles. Why introduce a new editions of the game when the one we had was just fine. There were some small issues but why not errata it instead of replacing it with a new edition. It was a money grab, pure and simple, they'd say. They wanted us all to have to buy the same books over again, they'd say. However, almost everyone switched because it was close enough that people felt their old books would still be useful. They could still use their old PrCs from the 3.0 books with almost no changes. They embraced it because not much was different.
When 4e came out, however, unlike with the 2e to 3e change, books had come out as recently as a couple of months ago. They game was still being updated and was still being played. Most people didn't even play it enough yet to discover its flaws. Plus, there was more interconnectedness. Our group had planned to get together with some people from Fargo, ND every year to play D&D at the Peace Gardens in order to play Living Greyhawk. Suddenly our yearly get together was in jeopardy. Would all our friends switch to 4e? Would there be a reason to get together when things changed over to Living Forgotten Realms? Was this another money grab like 3.5e only a couple of years later? We all bought the bullet and bought entirely new books like 3 years ago. Did we have the money to keep doing this forever? Why would they change it so soon after they already changed it? Was 3.5e bad enough that it needed to be changed? All of this came up and more. This was long before anyone knew anything about 4e at all, it had just been announced and that's it. The key factor here was "Why did they have to go and change what didn't need changing?" No one(except maybe me) felt that 3.5e was played out yet. It wasn't time. Change needed to come slower.
When 4e actually came out, it was different enough that people who were already afraid of change saw how MUCH it had changed and immediately wrote it off and too much change too quickly. It might be able to evolve in that direction eventually. But all those changes all at once was too much for people and they certainly weren't going to pay for it. At least, that's what nearly all my friends who refused to play 4e said.
The key is that people hate change. They will accept change, but it needs to be slow. 10 years of playing the same game and it can begin to feel old and in need of refreshment. 3 years and people don't feel that change is a good thing. I think people will be more accepting of D&D Next than 4e because for many people it's been 8 years since the last change(3.5e to D&D Next since they skipped 4e) and the change is small enough that it's easier to accept.
