ORIGINAL: burroughs
... but seriously. I was addressing the neoliberal crap about business and not the particular situation regarding TOAW III. If You didn't see the analogy, why did You use this as a context? Perhaps it was intended and there is no logical mistake there then. However, there is the analogy, it only depends which way one wants to juggle the words. It's the same as with the law - the law and the business with their discourses want to make others think their existence is an ultimate universal phenomenon whereas it is only possible through social agreement and the society are the people.The people have the voice and the right to have their say. Everybody's got a discourse of his own.The rest is willingness or unwillingness to bridge the gaps which are natural and unavoidable. Here we don't see the will to hence ranting and raving. People are trying to communicate and it's falling on deaf ears whereas You're trying to pacify that with slick apologies. Serial killers are also the way they are.It's not an argument, it's a circumstance.
The bottom line is that we deal with companies based on our experience of them. I'll buy a game from Matrix based on the game it is today knowing that they tend to polish up and relaunch old games then forget about them. Conversely, I'll buy from Paradox on a promise as they have a habit of treating their customers as beta testers- but do get to a finished product in the end.
Matrix isn't evil. They- like all companies- are just reacting to the market they're in. There aren't that many wargamers. Once you've released the game once your sales are going to slow to a trickle and as such there's no business justification for further patches. Paradox, on the other hand, sells hundreds of thousands of copies over long periods of time.