I'm patient, as long as the game is playable. Like the GTA V Online issue, wasn't a problem to me in the least, because I still had a fully functional single player experience while I waited.

Something Like a Bethesda game however, I give them a month to at the very least to stop the game from freezing. Bethesda, as much as I love them, suck at making a non-buggy game.

I cannot recall an instance where I bought and played a game that was fundamentally broken in such a way.

Closest thing I can think of would be transitions in Telltales Walking Dead game that would take so long to transition that the time on choices would run out and the game would the default answer.

Probably one month unless it's something crazy which completely makes the game unplayable.

I don't think this should even be a question. A game should work the day it's released, and it's ridiculous that we have to WAIT to have a game work as it was intended to. And it's one thing when the game's online stuff doesn't work, and that's a little more forgivable, but it's atrocious to even think of a game's offline functions not working. Publishers need to stop worrying about getting a game out at a certain time, and actually worry about putting out a game that's worth the $60.

They already have my money.  It doesn't matter if I'm willing to wait a day, week, or year.  

Because of this, I'm now much more leery about purchasing games on release.  I'll wait a few weeks and see what the state of the game is in.  And if I wait a month or two then more than likely I'll receive a great discount on the price!  

2 months. GTA online is dead to me almost.

It's been one month since NfS: Rivals came out, and Ghost STILL hasn't released a patch that might (among other things) unlock the framerate. And before everyone mentions that command line fix, know that I have a 4.4GHz Core i7 2600K and a GTX 690, and the game spends maybe 25% of the time at 60FPS, spending the rest fluctuating between 30 and 60. Even with this "fix," the framerate is still a problem. I'm running out of patience.

I think it all depends on what type of game it is, how much I paid for it, who made the game, etc. For example, I pretty much given up on GTA online, due to jobs and other missions becoming repetitive, and the match making taking forever and a day, not to mention the lack of heists and the harder it is to make money without people helping out on jobs. I say I waiting on GTA Online for two months before ditching it, I may come back once heists get there, but for now i'm trying some other games out before Christmas (currently playing Persona 3 for the first time)

Another example would be Simcity. At first I had my doubts before it came out, due to the constant online connection stuff, I just wish I would have went with my gut when I bought it. Unlike GTA 5 though, Simcity was online only, so basically Simcity was unplayable for a week or two, which turned me off to the game all together.

All in all, to me it depends on what the game offers, if its playable or not, and if the publisher/developer gives out steady updates of what's going on.

Depends on the developer and how clearly (and how often) they communicate with customers. Preferably, I'd prefer games to be released when they're DONE, and force developers to let go of stupid set-in-stone release dates which, more often than not, are arbitrarily set dates to appease higher-ups and/or stock holders.

Anyway, if the game is any good, I'll give it a month or two to see significant improvement, otherwise it's sh*t and undeserving of my time (and future purchases). I haven't paid for a single game released by Electronic Arts for over three years now, and I don't see myself purchasing anything from EA in the near future. Ubisoft is annoying me to the point I'm considering doing the same.

Bethesda on the other hand is a love-hate relationship of sorts. I hate how shi**y their QA is (maybe --probably non-existant) and they don't seem capable of EVER releasing a stable game, ever. But they do produce excellent video games and the 'community' are able to fix these games at a relatively fast pace, thus ensuring we're getting what we paid for in the end.

If the publisher is new or indie, I'll give it a couple months, too. As for everybody else, specially if it's a bad game, I'll just cry out, alert everybody, write bad reviews in metascore etc.

I give a game the amount of time needed before the first trade value drops at Gamestop.  So if it's two to three weeks, then that is all they get.  For the case of GTA V, they delayed online by 2 weeks and it's online launch was horrible, even after multiple weeks and promises of what it was going to offer, it has yet to live up the hype it marketed.  That game is gone from my library.  Battlefield 4 on the other hand is stuck with me because I bought that stupid Premium service(shame on me).  This China Rising delay and 'patch' crap is stupid.  It should have been ready for download today for the PS4.  I cannot stand how this game is being handled by EA/Dice.  Oh well,,, at least COD and Killzone work...

I'm ruthless.  If I pay $60+ for a game, I demand that it works on the same day that I get it.  Major headaches have been with Borderlands 2.  EVERY time a DLC pack came out and I wanted to play it with my friends, I had issues with downloading/installing it.

I'm usually very tolerant of buggy, unpolished games, and one of my pet hates is when gamers act all spoiled and throw a tantrum after a crash or two.

I only give up on games when I really don't like something about the actual design direction and gameplay.

It depends to me. If I am still enjoying playing the game I overlook glitches. I dont play FPS's so as long as the story is making up for any glitches I am good to go. Great example being Assassin's Creed 3. Glitch after glitch after glitch but the story was enough to make me not care.

"A Developer ships a broken game"

How does that sentence sound? They shipped a BROKEN game. I find it pretty awful to ship a game knowing that it is broken, or refusing to QA Test it. I know the blame can also be sent to the Publisher for making an unreasonable deadline, but either way it ends up with me avoiding the game altogether and not recommending it to anyone I know. The "Double XP for a Week" style bonus as reparations for the terrible experience is also pathetic.

Deadlines and the problems they cause have always been a big issue with AAA titles, which is part of the reason why I think AAA stuff is usually terrible. The only big games that have any sense of polish these days belong to Nintendo.

So I guess I fall into the ruthless part of the spectrum here. You should not pre-order games, as it only serves to condone this behavior from the companies who make games. Don't take every review to heart either. Respect your own opinion and first impressions. If you think a game looks great, wait a bit after the release, gather some more information, and then give it a shot. If you jump right into every big release with $60 on hand , you might be wasting your money.

The games industry is in a sad state.

We now enthusiastically accept broken products with the sellers openly admitting that they just want our money before they can fix it.

I know games are becoming more complex. I know there are a myriad of considerations that have to taken into account before the games release. BUT, lets not pretend that they couldn't fix this stuff before release. It would just take them longer to develop. They might have to buy extra server space for their games. They might have to hire more game testers. They might make a little less money.

They choose to do it because we allow them. SimCity was a disgrace. BF4 is currently a disgrace (Both EA, not shocking). Online focused games will probably always be this way. I'm not holding my breath for a smooth Titanfall release (more EA)

Does it matter? They already got your money ....

Depends on the size of the studio. A small studio like Egosoft or Bohemia I forgive bugs sooner and give them more time than a giant like Activision or EA. A title like Battlefield or Call of Duty has to be perfect from the first minute. A), the companies have the capital for an intelligent quality assurance and an enormous infrastructure. B) Is it only sequels with the same technologies with minimum enhancements. As may happen, so to speak no more errors. But you are used to. The software industry as a whole, I still look at as an industry in baby shoes. Growing up is perhaps the most in 50 years, when it has as the machinery industry reached an agreement with the international standard and pursue functioning, defined processes for quality assurance. Of this industry is Miles Apart. Once an industry really works, products liability are at fault, etc. also no longer a foreign word.

I would hope a game would be fixed within one month of release.  Knack I am looking at you!!  My son and I love the fun coop but it keeps freezing on us.  This is the only game out of the 9 PS4 games I own that locks up my PS4.  Please fix this fun game Sony/Mark!!!

I usually give a month for minor issues. (i.e non-important things disappearing) Major issues shouldn't happen, and if so, 3 days.

I would say with no knowledge of just what the company has to do to fix their game that I think 3-4 weeks is the max because I figure that's lenient enough for them to work on the bugs/glitches and then make a patch for them. THEN release the patch and hope it doesn't cause further issues.

People nowadays are just so "NOW NOW NOW" it's disgusting.