I do appreciate your point, but from a pragmatic point of view everyone purchasing these games at launch are paying full-price for a broken product.
Patches that fix bugs (not add new features) have become a necessary evil in gaming, but I don’t think you would wax nearly as poetically about any other product that you bought in day-to-day life, only to discover that it is broken upon delivery.
There are games where a patch is more like a lifeline, an absolute necessity so you can bear it until the end. Other times a patch is of great value, which expands upon the basics. I feel like buying video games is more of gamble then any other product. Usually in other products you know exactly what it does, and what it is for. A "broken" bread, car, hardware is either doing what they are for or they are not. There are no in-betweens. They are "broken" for everyone. A "broken" game however can still work, although maybe not how you wanted it to. Others may not even experience those negatives. Your perfect game may be "broken" for others. And exactly because of this unidentifiable state of brokenness exists the potential to upgrade them, to shape them even beyond what is expected of them. In some sense there is no pragmatic point of view in buying a video game. But as i said before, i'm not disagreeing with you, or happy about these delays.


