While I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment, I'm not sure it's a fitting comparison.
I didnt compare games, just attitude of (absent?) marketing departments.
I believe that if gaming industry should learn anything from cyberpunk, its that marketing sells. And keeping in touch with your audience is allways good move.
I dont think that state of game, or "being in EA" is relevant in this case.
Some can deal with this task better, some not so good ... and some (yes, Paradox i look at you again) much, much and even much worse then horribly.
Also, lets be honest with each other ... even if we get update every month, there would be people who would demand it every 2 weeks ... and if we get update every 2 weeks, there would be people who would demand it every week ... and i presume you get the picture.
Isn't sharing and expectations the main purpose of a (60$) EA ?
Two notes:
1) If it is, I don't know that they would prevent anyone from doing so.
2) I wonder why people keep repeating that cost ... it would make sence if that would be actualy cost only for EA and you would need to either pay more when its going to be released, or buy finished game again ... but you dont, you allready own the full game, you are just allowed to play beta before release for free. O_o
