Civ series has been a joke on release for two games in a row in the mainline series. In the objective sense, they have repeatedly failed to deliver what they advertised. You can make a case that they eventually become good, but that's not a strong case for pre-order. Pre-ordering civ makes as much sense as pre-ordering an unfinished car, of a make and model that was recalled the last two times. Eventually that car was solid after a few recalls, so let's pre-order it! No. Can we please not incentivize beta release games? Why must this be a doormat market? Yes, its is generally advisable to not ignore a track record of poor performance/quality, and yes that's more important when the product is your brakes or the quality of food consumed. The reality is that in markets where people don't accept false advertising and poor release quality on the expectation that it will get better, the products being held to a higher standard by purchasers actually reach that standard. Name calling/making insulting implications of people who disagree is not something that will command respect. The point is that behavior creates incentive for other behavior. In essence, massed tolerance for low quality does in fact incentivize products being produced at lower quality, or rather disincentivizes putting in more investment to make the quality meet even its own listed standards. You can call that juvenile if you want, but it doesn't change reality. The incentives and their consequences are clear. I wasn't aware hardware caused the UI to misrepresent what would happen or make MP fail constantly with only a fraction of the players allegedly possible. Care to elaborate what hardware issue causes these things? I'm sure it can't be that difficult to do if these are legit hardware issues. What was the interaction?