It is a good game, but the reviewer has a point, the game should not have got a release when it did, they had a major patch within a day or so that killed most bugs, but they should have held off for that short period, even now, I wont play the game until I see more stability, it is very playable at the moment and at the price I got it, it was well worth the purchase, I have no regrets.

As regards the apology, well that's kinda stupid, but then some people sue game publishers for buggy games (*shrugs*), the publisher/devs response was totally bonkers and off the wall though, I think they Dyacked themselves severely and I'm sure this will reflect on any future sales.

Priorities man, priorities.

Ontopic - I get why the developers might be feeling a little defensive, but they still need to act more responsibly. After all they are the ones taking peoples money.
Now my dilemma is - I want the game (it looks really interesting, even if buggy), I want to buy it here. Do I continue to wait until I have cleared a few more games and risk it, or buy now to avoid GOG's complete removal like with Dark something?

I found it, I found it:

dickbag

derogatory term, usually intended for a male idiot.

If they continue to sell Omerta (unplayable), I don't see any reason that they would remove this game considering it has been patched and is playable as noted by F1ach. I'd vote to risk it.

Edit: I don't have Dead State so I can't speak for it's current state.

So it is a mild indicktement.

Annie Mitsoda's Reddit comment has been restored by the mods (it was apparently removed because it was made from a new account and got caught in the spam filters): https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/2q89cv/dead_state_developer_trying_to_get_critical/cn41yxm

I don't think he thought of elaborating more on the bugs because if you click on the helpful review now, you can see a series of negative review with not a single positive review.

The report on the developers moral values is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT because it will meant if the devs will actually polish the game to an acceptable state before moving on to another project.

There are too many early access games that are buggy, un-fun, broken and was abandon by the developers once they get your money and they move on another project to scam your money again.

By all accounts though they are polishing the game still, and pretty quickly. So sure be unhappy that released a buggy game at release, but give the credit were it's do...

Again both sides are in the wrong. Reviews are for reviewing the game, not because your unhappy you were banned from a forum and believe you know what a company did with nothing to back it up.

I'm sorry but that just shows lack of knowledge of how software development works. Was there bugs they probably knew about close to release, probably... we won't know for sure, but it's likely. It's also most likely if they did they were simple bugs that could be fixed quickly. When you go from a small sample size (ie early access) to a full release bugs are found very quickly because of the sheer amount of people playing. It's impossible to find every bug before release, or have a software with zero bugs. It will never happen as long as humans are programming them.

Anything major found was fixed quickly, game has bugs but nothing critical for sure. No apology is needed, it's simply the result of software development and human error. If they had released the game and didn't patch it or as you say moved on, then sure then an apology is warranted.

The belief that they released early for Christmas, is simply that a belief, and even if true... that's business, they're not the first nor will they be the last to do so.

I am programing myself, but that does not matter at all. The user who wrote the review stated that there were already people stating their concerns in the devs forum and got muted. So they were aware that they release the game in a bad state although they got the kickstarter funds to develop the game fully. The move was a business decision to get money and stating this in a review IS relevant for the consumer to buy or not to buy the game at this point. It may be the loved baby of the devs, but the move to release it in that state with the numerous "known" bugs was a business decision to grab money - that is it.

Well, the developers claim that the bugs the user posted about in the forum either had been fixed already or appeared to be specific to his machine. At this point, it's seems to be one person's word against another.

The claim that the developers knowingly released a broken game for a quick cash grab is a pretty serious accusation, though. One that should need at least some evidence and that in this case seems to be contradicted by the fact that the developers did not drop support of the game after release and are still fixing bugs.

That's the entire issue right there though, your taking that as true when the person who wrote it has a clear bias since he was banned from their forums... I'm not saying its true or not. I don't know. But the user makes bold claims, and presents no support. I also believe there are better ways to present his views (like reddit, game forums, ect), but instead user became a drama queen set on a mission to turn the community against the developers. And at that he appears to be succeeding. His review really didn't review the game, which is the point of reviews.

Oh for crying out loud. Haven't people by now learned from what happened to Phil Fish?

Then a decent answer from the company would have been, the main problems are solved the game is ok, there are no longer any game breaking bugs, just some minor ones. Instead of calling him a dickbag. The problem is with such reactions you elevate the discussion to a level where the stated point of discussion is no longer relevant.

PS Hmm, ok it was not the company who called him a dickbag.