Well, I think that it almost any game from any developer or publisher. Every game I've ever played has a community who complains about the same thing, even when the game no longer has support it is still not perfected. Thats the nature of things, no game can ever be perfect. But that said, I do think that it would have been nice if this game got more support. Yes, thank s to Doomdark for continuing the patching process, but I wish there had been more of an intentional love from the devs about the game, which could have been so much more had it been given the same focus as EU3. .
I'm fine with Rome as it is (and even as it was) and quite tired to this community that keeps barking around everywhere but I'm not fine with games that receive DLCs and/or huge patches right after they've hit the shelves. I agree, Rome was "broken", thanks to the patching (CTDs, cascading alliances etc.), but now it seems to be getting better.
What I was after with the publishing alpha comment was that a company shouldn't publish something if it needs 1,1GB patch (like a certain pirate game last year published by Paradox and developed by a certain Finnish studio..) immediately after publishing to be enjoyable. I understand deadlines and blah blah but still I don't think that waiting a moment makes as bad fame as non-working games.