Yeah, I'd say this makes sense on a case by vase basis.

Like if the game is well rounded and has some polish and isn't locking you out via MT's/Battle passes, and isn't too big of a money sink, then yeah, day 1 would make sense.

if it's buggy af, lacking content, diming you from the get-go, putting you on the hamster wheel for little quality output, then yeah, that sounds like a "do not buy until half a year to 1 year later" kind of choice. 

Palworld for example is low price, meaning there is low risk of investment from the customer. The game isn't perfect and has some bugs, but it's in better shape than others like it were at their launch (like Ark as a prime example). The game also has an amount of content for the player to do and to entertain themselves, and it has no BP's/MT's, so it makes the investment choice come off as a sound investment, at least compared to say Suicide Squad, which has all the hallmarks of a "do not buy at launch if at all" written all over it. 

Personally I like to wait a couple of weeks if it's a cheap game to see how many patches it'll receive to rectify core issues. The expensive games (like Sony's late ports), I'll simply just wait 1-2 years until they're dirt cheap, and by then they'll be patched up enough (though TLOU Remaster on PC really isn't indicating to me that it's drastically improved as some like to say it has).

i think it depends on the game or the developers. but honestly i just wait to see if the reviews are good first before buying regardless of who made it.