The thing is, that doesn't seem to be solid reasoning to me. It is absolutely a tricky line to walk between consumer advocacy and understanding of development and business, and I believe your good intentions here. My disagreement is simply with the reasoning.
Which reasoning are you referring to? Please clarify. If I seem anti-industry, I'm not. Gaming is one of my few hobbies, trying to add more to that list. I have noticed a trend now though where I buy games that are to some degree incomplete (in my opinion) on release and later see them go on sale with everything fixed, and that's starting to get me to wait out many game releases. I understand the need for profit, but I wanted to express my opinion regarding upgrade paths. I have a good understanding of the business involved.
Games are always going to be cheaper later down the line. All products become cheaper later down the line. What's the cut-off point here? Should games be reduced in price less often? Because offering "early adopters" more is a bit of a tricky strategy, because of the criticisms you yourself raised of the state of the game on release.
People who buy games on release aren't going to get a "better deal" unless a product comes out with more development time behind it. However, this doesn't mean that the game is therefore being released with a deficit of time applied to it. Bugs will crop up invariably in games. It doesn't matter how simple they are perceived to be, they happen. It doesn't matter how easy they are to arguably fix. They still happen. More time doesn't necessarily always fix this, because for every one bug you see, there are probably a bunch of others you don't. I mean this is a truism, you're a computer scientist, I'm kinda wasting our time stating this.
This is an interesting conversation. Yup, all products become cheaper down the line, but the thing is - most software has to be feature complete on release (lets see MS try to release Windows with, lets say, wireless printing being non-functional). If I buy an iPhone, a bag, or a hard drive - that's it, it won't get better unless software updates come out to improve the experience a bit in the iPhone's case. Otherwise that's it, what you see is what you get. It will be a complete product, and if it's not, the company will be in trouble. The decision is relatively simple - buy early and enjoy it early, or buy late to save money. There usually aren't any hidden factors. Finished products for a set price, take it or leave it.
Games in particular though in my opinion have different factors in today's digital world. In my opinion, there very much is such a thing as a time deficit or resource deficit when it comes to games. I would argue that there should be a completion standard to which a game is held before release - not meeting that standard would mean either a deficit of time or resources, and would mean the game was not released in a finished state.
It's the difference between releasing a single-player FPS where the enemies run around like chickens, or make even a half-hearted attempt to stay behind cover and fight back. Or where the enemies are half-rendered, etc. Would it be acceptable to release a game in that state, and then patch it up a few months later? I know most of us would say no. Both consumers and the developers are aware of this implied completion standard. I'm not expecting an FPS to have an army of Neo's, but from art to graphics to AI, there are things we can all reasonably expect of a released game. I'm not talking about bugs where when you do X then Y you end up with Z instead of A, like you said bugs are part of the software development process due to our human nature. I'm talking about all major aspects of gameplay. If I buy an RTS, I expect that AI to know how to build all the units and at least toss them at me, even if it isn't a genius at doing so. I'd frequently encounter AI units on the move in Age of Empires II and I learned to pick them off while they were on their way - but they were trying. And if they got to their destination, they'd cause trouble.
Firaxis is a trustworthy and good developer, and Civ 6 was released in a great state. I'm speaking in general terms though. Whether they reached the completion standard with Civ 6 depends on the player and their approach to the game. In my opinion they came close, but the AI behavior meant that more resources were needed to ensure that the AI could succeed at capturing cities, which I would say is important in a game like civ. I still have full trust in Firaxis to continue to buy on-release and support them and the series. But it's clear to me at least that the AI team needs more investment to be able to live up to the promise of a complete civ game. If no updates took place after the release, and we had an AI that wouldn't capture cities (except very rarely), wouldn't build a navy or air units... would that be considered complete? If the expectation is that those things will be fixed after release, then doesn't that mean that early buyers won't experience the full game when the buy the game, and that they're in fact signing up for a long-term investment (as civ always is).
Given the trend of complaints about AI in 4x games, it seems to me that there just isn't enough room in the industry for resources/time to be invested in AI. It's probably something to do with the investment in marketing, art, etc. This is starting to become sort of a cliche with this genre. With the recent release of the spring patch, the AI keeps on getting better. It is a tough balancing act, I agree - but to me the resource/time balance is way off when a key game function is missing some important aspects. I greatly enjoy air combat in civ because it makes me feel like it's something new in the late game. It's not enjoyable at all to make air units and see that the AI doesn't seem to understand what they are. That tells me that the balance needs to be adjusted.
Something as simple as an upgrade path I think is a great incentive for early buyers to go through with a purchase on release. If that's not suitable for a company for whatever reason, that's their choice. At the end of the day the buyers will adapt. From my personal perspective, Firaxis did a great job for us deluxe buyers. Had I been a standard buyer, my opinion might've been different. I'd still think highly of Firaxis, but I'm not sure I'd buy the DLC, I would probably have waited until they were on sale. Maybe next time I'd consider buying deluxe up front or waiting for a sale...
“Those video games are too violent, son!”
