There is one big and crucial difference between a tabletop RPG and a video game: the DM. That one big difference not only makes trying to fix every single little detail redundant, it makes such micromanagement of the system impossible. Every DM is going to have their own twist and interpretation of the rules regardless of how much the publisher tries to fix the "official" version, so it still comes down to the DM, not the publisher, what the final game experience is going to be like. Therefore, what a tabletop RPG needs for functionality is not the same that a video game needs. A video game needs those constant little tweaks to a much greater extent because computers read every line of code literally. A tabletop RPG needs solid core functionality with the occasional errata to fix major problems and imbalances between older and newer material that were not able to be found and/or ironed out before release; the DM is going to have to iron out the little details and problems raised by each individual group anyway so trying to errata out every little problem that one person in one thousand isn't necessary, helpful, or a wise use of resources. There's a reason that Paizo is far closer to the market standard for errata than WotC; table top gamers want a largely functional game they can make tweaks to without being required to make huge and massive adjustments all of time. WotC ever since 3.5 has failed to provide that, constantly putting out untested and unbalanced new material and trying to fix problems after they cropped up rather than before release; Paizo, and most of the industry, tends to put out actual player material and/or completely new subsystems at a much slower rate that allows for better testing and integration into the overall system.
After initial release, Paizo put out several player option books at once, each with a different focus, most of which players generally agreed were pretty good books overall, and than switched to other material to cover for a while as those options were thoroughly played and tested by the players; some of the most obvious imbalances were fixed, but for the most part, they were already sufficiently balanced not to require massive errata. The core game is not something they have really messed with, and isn't something they have had to really mess with; the finer details are also sufficiently in line with each other that individual DMs can make tweaks without being required to overhaul major sections of the game. There are a few exceptions, to be certain, that require more effort to deal with, but they remain exceptions, not the general rule. Also, most of the adjustments seem have come from informal interpretations on the forums to specific issues, some of which prove to be important enough to justify official errata, but not all of it, rather than a small team of devs trying to isolate and fix the problems on their own.
WotC's approach during most of their ownership of the D&D brand, on the other hand, tends to try to emulate the video game model of release quickly and patch later, a method that just doesn't work all that well with tabletop RPGs. People either simply never pick up the system in the first place because the core systems themselves are a mess that take too long to get put into a functional state, or those that do tend to ignore the "official" corrections as they have already come up with their own. Worse, WotC does a poor job of checking newer products against anything but their core books, a major problem when their market strategy is a constant stream of new player option books, meaning that they, and their customers, have to do twice as much work after the release than they would have had to do if the major stuff had been more thoroughly worked out before release. I expect more errata from them than I do Paizo simply because of their tendency to recreate the game from scratch every new edition, but not nearly as much as they had for 4E; at some point, a new system has to stabilize, and 4E never did. Even Essentials, which was the largest stabilization of the system up to that point, introduced enough new factors to generate a fair bit of new instability and imbalance. What they had for 3.5 was already a borderline nuisance, and that was tolerated by many largely because of their investment in the system up to that point. Next needs to go no higher than that level or the amount of errata will once again be a major turnoff for a lot of people; anything like what 4E had will ensure minimal success at best. The tabletop RPG crowd will see it as too much of a video game, and the video game crowd will see it as not being enough like video games.
