No, my argument is, that games were released back then were in a better state all in all.
By-and-large... they're weren't.
Some were. But those that were not, often received a lack of follow-on support that would be considered scandalous today.
Respectfully disagree.
I've been playing video games since the mid 1970s and whilst they were typically limited in scope (ie. you could reach the end of them) the vast majority were 'finished' and not 'WIP' in the sense they were feature complete, some bugs not withstanding. This was partly due to the fact there was only so much you could cram into the limited resources available at the time and there was no really effective way to update them after they were launched, particularly pre-internet, newsgroups, BBS etc (yes, limited magazine support and occasional patch disks later on).
I didn't play alternate reality, but I recall it on the Atari ST (?) as an episodic series that was never finished, arguably the first game was completed.
Other bad examples include Frontier First Encounters, which had game breaking bugs at launch which was fixed by patch disks.
It is true to say that none of those early games received any kind of "extended support" like we enjoy today with titles like Elite Dangerous. Older games would have a 2-3 year lifespan until the "next cool thing" came along.
Cheers,
Drew.
Ultimately, I think the difference is marketing and expectation. It wasn't that software was released in a near bug-free state -- in some cases it was better maybe, by virtue of being simpler and produced by smaller teams, but in some cases it was far worse! -- it's that there was less expectation of a fix.
A game like Elite Dangerous release 1.0
would have been considered a feature complete £35 game, and large feature additions like Wings, Planetary Landings etc. would likely have been bundled together in a full-price sequel or two.
Customers would have spent their thirty-odd quid (or less if they waited), enjoyed it or not enjoyed it, maaaybe had a small patch or two for more glaring bugs (just like we do, but harder to get a hold of the patches back then), maybe paid another £15 for a pack adding some new mission types and a couple of new ships, and just sucked it up. Then Elite Dangerous 2 would come out and the cycle would continue.
Widespread internet use and modern games-as-a-service business models allowed Frontier to promise more -- both paid and unpaid -- after launch for Elite Dangerous. Due to these promises, the perception at purchase is your thirty quid is also buying you a not-entirely-concrete idea of future content and improvements, and of course bug-fixes (not including LEPs here, that's a different can of worms). It invites expectations as to what that future content should entail, because you feel you've already bought it, and a feeling of greater investment in improvements being made and bugs being fixed.
In the 90s, bugs were often just as present, just as annoying, but people generally lived with them and worked around them. They became foibles of the game itself. You hoped for a patch, but you didn't get offended and angry about it. Or if you did it was "well, I won't be buying their next game". If you bought a buggy game, you'd bought a buggy game. Like you'd bought a poorly proofread novel or a movie with plot-holes in it.
![[PS4 Pro - PC] earthtone99](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/194/194606.jpg?1590051410){kind=avatar}
