Still. While I understand your position, I don't ultimately agree with you. Some responsibility must fall on the buyer in this case, surely. No one hid that patches and hotfixes would be forthcoming. Any amount of research into the matter would have indicated that bugs were likely to be a part of the purchase. So, this is a "buyer beware" situation, wherein a certain due diligence is to be expected of the buyer. Caveat emptor, right?
Right, it's not like BG3/Larian is heralded as a masterpiece 10/10 game/studio that's setting standards for AAA games for being a relatively bug free game. Nor is Larian a company thats 450 staff strong where the buyer would expect a staffed QA department in order to vet the patches to prevent the current issues from occuring, no, it's definetly the buyers fault for not researching enough reviews.
No offense intended, but I had to point out that only a handful of critic reviews probably even mentioned how buggy the game was on release (and mostly related to act 3) and how people expect a company of Larian's size to be putting out bug fixes that doesn't reduce the stability of the game. 3500ish fixes is good and all, but it's seemingly come at the cost of making the rest of the game more unstable, things that should've been properly vetted by QA, no?
(Mind you, not having a jab at their QA department, I hope they're treated much better than the industry standard)
