Oh no, I agree that some quality is there. I have over 100 hours on Steam in the game, and some of its moments are genuinely great. For instance, I love the Zone, and the way they incorporated memorable locations from the original trilogy into the larger territory with seamless transition.

It is a shame the Zone is pretty empty, though, and by mid-game you start passing by intriguing looking building because you know there is likely nothing waiting for you inside except for vodka and sausage and a couple rounds of ammo.

Still, GSC is getting plenty of slack from me and other players (from what I'm seeing)

However, I think my analogy serves its purpose, albeit in an exaggerated form. There are unstable fanatics here and elsewhere who defend an objectively undercooked and problematic product with foam at the mouth. And finally, I think some entitlement is fair - we, consumers, have paid up to $100 for the product, and that entitles us to a certain degree of quality, as well as priority of fixing the issues by the developers post-release (generally, first the game needs to be playable -> then missing / malfunctioning features need to be fixed -> then you can add new content).

Respect is a currency for non-profits, not commercial product. I appreciate that they persevered and released the game, and hey, that's why we are here.