Where in my statement did I say I'm cool with them giving me the finger?  *chuckle* See, they don't give me the finger, because I don't buy shit games.  $60 pays for allot of gas to get me to places I need to go, or allot of fishing equipment, or etc...  The days where I just throw $60 at an unknown quantity are long, long over.

Bolded:  That's not their problem, until we make it their problem.  If everyone jumps on the train, they assume it's been accepted, and run with it.  The fault rests with the consumer, not the company.

Italics: I never said they have to do them, I simply said the consumers allowed it to occur.  Again, the consumers are responsible for this.  Companies exist to make money, consumers have to keep them in check...and when they don't, the industry assumes it's accepted and then moves on to the next new revenue stream.

Developers can do whatever they want. Release an hour long game and charge £40 for it. If people are willing to spend their money on DLC, season passes, easrly access, etc, more power to them. I won't stop them and I have no right to tell them what's good for them. It's their decision. Like you, I vote with my wallet and strongly disagree with such practises. BUT, if people want to spend their money on such things, so be it.

The way I see it, the only proper reason to complain is if it actually limits your options. This doesn't.

Thats a terrible way to look at things. The "just dont buy it" argument doesnt work. We dont buy it, but people that dont know any better do and ruins it for the rest of us. They arent thinking about the long time effect.

Thats like saying "Yeah, I dont care if theres drug dealers out there, just dont buy their drugs and theyll stop"

Developers can do whatever they want. Release an hour long game and charge £40 for it. If people are willing to spend their money on DLC, season passes, easrly access, etc, more power to them. I won't stop them and I have no right to tell them what's good for them. It's their decision. Like you, I vote with my wallet and strongly disagree with such practises. BUT, if people want to spend their money on such things, so be it.

The way I see it, the only proper reason to complain is if it actually limits your options. This doesn't.

That's not even remotely close and you know it. How exactly does it ruin it for you?

Errrrrr.......... I don't think you understand what or how an early access program works.

So if I stop buying games without a demo, then publishers will take notice?

Well, here you find the crux of the issue we're in.  Because people didn't recognize how the removal of demo's could impact the industry, and thus made it profitable for companies to just not release demo's.  It will now take a concerted effort from gamer's to reverse that course.  And, to the delight of publishers/devs/manufacturers, gamer's have yet to be able to really speak with one voice and tell the industry Aww hell naw, because they're too busy defending their hardware of choice, or their IP of choice.  Notice how fast Microsoft reversed course on the DRM thing, that was because the industry responded with a resounding no.  Those kinds of critique's of policy need to be made more often, if we hope to have any control over the industry.

You can ignore them giving you the finger, but they're still giving it to you.

To justify companies disrespecting the consumer by making it the consumers fault is ridiculous.  It's like asking a rape victim "what did you do to get raped?"  Even if everyone is "jumping on a train" it doesn't mean they're protected from criticism.

Cancer exists to self replicate.  Do you tell a doctor "No I don't want chemo, the cancer's just doing it's thing"?  Existing to do something doesn't mean it's cool when you're disrespecting the unknowing consumer and contributing to a not far off crash of the industry.

What ever happened to quality control departments? Why does this fall in the consumers lap?  Why is the customer doing the companies job FOR THEM?