Sumez wrote:it's not like people aren't aware of this.
They don't, which is why I posted to begin with. Gamers have no idea what business looks like nor do they know anything about corporate business. They think their money increases in value over time. Nobody cared about day 1 patches or physical releases in the 90s. Every single Playstation blog entry has incredibly clueless and ungrateful people complaining that they paid $400 for a console yet seem somehow surprised that it does not continuously dispense free content to their very specific interests at all possible times, irrespective of the fact that the console was most likely sold at a loss, even.
Sumez wrote:But as consumers, I think we should reserve the right to at least epxress how we WISH things would be, and being able to get a complete product on the release date is definitely something that I feel is a very simple and understandable wish
As consumers, consumers are just money, and there is plenty of that. As a corporate, no employer is going to pay staff overtime for delays if they can help it, because like I said, it cuts into potential profit margin. This was irrelevant in the 90s for the most part, because games had small dev teams. No one is boycotting games because they were released exclusively digital, except for a small vocal minority who can't let go of their childhood. Day 1 and post-release patches are a good thing, not a bad thing, and they should be encouraged. It shows that these developers are willing to uphold the integrity of their game for the present and the future, and respect for their work. It's now even easier to make patches for games so there's literally no reason for them not to, unless they don't need to.
Constructive consumer criticism usually comes from people who have already invested in the product, by the way. In the game world, devs usually listen in silence to what activity their games are generating online, if any bugs are found or reported, etc. It's even encouraged to report feedback to some devs.
