When I said capabilities, might as well have mentioned their capacity as well. I can only guess why they won't touch the CTD issues further, since they are still present, but at least less prevalent.
I am just glad the community has figured out workarounds, even more so, since the final user has no agreed upon obligation to make a buggy software run properly or even wave their right to a refund in such a case.
I have no intimate knowledge of how developed are the legalities surrounding video game software, but the most infamous cases I happen to have heard of revolve around securing digital rights and combating piracy.
It's just what I am hearing from people who have transcented to the level of game modding and community patching, that it's impractical to rely their efforts on developer/publisher feedback/support.
It's not ideal, but I think of it the same as the recommended requirements each game has.
Where do the game's processing needs end and where does the developer's ability for optimization begin?
So where does a developer's whits end and where does the modding begin?
Every video and guide published, proving that a final user solved an issue a developer wasn't able to fix, just adds to the developer's incompetence, since the users affected do inquire and do notice.
Certain people are more sensitive and reserved about developer reputation and certain others don't mind at all, so I wouldn't expect certain developers/publishers to go out of business, as much as I wouldn't expect Valve, for locking product access behind a D.R.M. client (Steam), even though I would certainly not shed a single tear over their potential dissolution.
As in the cases of HZD and BAK, it is commonplace for games ported to PC to face technical issues, ending up taking more effort to patch, if at all and customers feeling cheated either way. It seems that there is great variation on how companies evaluate the currency of reputation.