No, I was referring to this. It’s a common argument I see come up all the time, but it conflates whinging with valid criticism. The majority of us that criticise the EA model don’t complain about incorrect armored glass, we complain about things that directly affect functionality and should have been caught in internal testing or included in the initial release. Jabbers’ video on the F-16 release covers this well, and is the same position I take (and supposedly ED stopped promoting his channel after this criticism).
There is a huge difference between “the glass of the Fw190 HUD is not perfect” and an aircraft shipping with invincibility unless you manage to snipe the pilot (Viper EA). Too often this difference is discounted or ignored completely in the discussion.
Another argument that I see come up–I don’t think I’ve seen it here–is “entitlement” for wanting a baseline standard for EA modules. I question who’s more entitled: those who expect a certain level of quality from an EA release, or those who demand EA instead of waiting for a finished product? EA only exists so long as the consumers demand it through their wallet votes. Food for thought.
For the record, I thought the initial state of the Hornet and Supercarrier EA were reasonable.