No. I made no such assumption. I don't blame people for "choosing to enjoy the game". I blame people for their contribution to the market not punishing development teams for not reaching their own stated standards or worse, false advertising. Advertised features not working for a substantial portion of a game's life cycle is not a "minor issue". The game itself lying to the player is not a minor issue, even if you try to say these things are minor issues or imply it with vague analogies. If the market held development to development's stated standards, they would be meet those standards. If people consistently avoided games with misrepresented feature lists and poor UI, we'd see more good UI and less dishonesty in feature lists. It's not like we don't have games that do the above properly already, so I'm not buying a "no product" conclusion; evidence points against it. What standard should you compare against for "not as bad"?