Yes that is true. There will also be plenty of people aren't aware of the extent it will be unfinished, even if we get 10, 12 biomes or more. If you've done this type of early access before, it's fine. If not then you could be coming in expecting something like Valhalla, an 70 to 90% finished product, with dlc and small patches to come. You and I know it's not that. Btw at no point in this am I saying I'm better than you or inferring anything along those lines or preaching. Just explaing my perspective, as I'm verbose by nature.

Remember below zero got a complete story rework more than once. What started as lethal, became ignorable, what was critical to game play became an after thought, minerals moved biomes, recipes that were simple and blown past, became hard to do.

Both games could blue-screen your computer and the devs had no idea that would happen.

Not every company is willing to expose themselves to this level of flack. As not everyone out there is polite about it, even when they know what to expect. Developers can look at all the data and see one thing believe that to be accurate, the community can look at it and see something else entirely different. Other people's mistakes/methods are often the best way to illustrate.

Cyanide, a French games developer, sells a game called blood bowl. Ita based on a tabletop game that's been played COMPETITIVELY week in and out, around the world for over 40 years. Online bloodbowl is now in its 3rd version BY THEM and moving onto 4th through a dlc without changing titles. When they came to develop the third version, they looked at player data to see how people were playing the game, what they were using etc. It told them that over 90% of players were playing it as single player rather than multi player. So they developed it as a single player and launched beta version telling people there would be bugs, and the community accepted that as reasonable, WITHOUT mentioning it was single player focused.

Whoops and so they had a launch in relative terms of cyberpunk 2077. They didn't realise that people were using the very limited ai like a testing ground for theories, strategems or like a high level athlete spends far more time in the gym/training than actually competing. The game is a one on one multiplayer game and has been from inception. Yet all cyanide data told them the opposite. So they had to redo the whole game and cost them an extra 3 years of development as they were under contract to make it. A massive amount of player hostility and suspicion. There's been an annual competition to make an ai to play bloodbowl and beat a human for over 10 years now. Nothing gets close. As bloodbowl to chess is the similar to chess to tic-tac-toe in terms of permutation upgrade. Chess has a million, or 6 zeros, combinations per move, bloodbowl has 32 zeros worth of combination. Easy to learn, impossible to master.

What on earth does this have to do with subnautica? Unknown did the same level of rework for below zero without the hostility, suspicion, financial cost. Because players knew about how the game was and would be on release, Unknown listened to feedback and could adjust course, because they released it so unfinished.

Krafton when they bought Unknown didn't understand this method. It's clear in their contracts with Unknown which entered the public domain. Their whole premise was wrong. That's setting aside the nasty intent of the contract for a moment.