> I really wonder if the possibility of updates alone can make software worse.

Absolutely does. You see this in console video games. As soon as online updates became possible, game-breaking bugs at launch became practically the norm, instead of incredibly rare (minor bugs were common enough before ["I AM ERROR"], sure, but game-breaking ones, while not unheard of, were rare). Charging $60 for a late-alpha-quality product.

Many modern AAA titles have day-one patches, and with some games pivoting to a 'Live Services' model, additional content is often put on an arbitrary 'roadmap'.

If it was all executed well, it would be fine. The problem is, it isn't.

A public beta used to actually be a mostly-finished product, but is often used now as a 'preorder for early access' period. The last one I participated in was for Elder Scrolls Online, and it was kind of funny with how broken things would be. It wasn't as funny when the game launched with a few of those bugs still in place.

"Fail fast" in action, to the detriment of drivers everywhere.

I agree with what you are saying, except that "I AM ERROR" isn't actually a bug. The character is intentionally named that in Zelda II, even in the original Japanese.

Huh, TIL. I even had the game back in the day, and had no idea that wasn't an actual oversight.

Programmer joke. See my sibling comment to yours.

And "Bagu" is mistranslated; his name is supposed to be "Bug".

Yes. It'll have more bugs to begin with because the software team has no hard deadline to meet. Then it'll accumulate more bugs over time as "features" are added (while existing bugs are ignored). Then after 2-4 years nobody will be working on it any more and within 6-8 years it may no longer function at all or it may have well known never-to-be-patched security holes.

I try to avoid buying tech that can be updated, and tech that can connect to the internet in general.

Not to mention that corporates have incentives to downgrade the devices the older it gets.

> patches became somewhat slower after update.

Could this be a form of assisted obsolescence, in which a user who has owned a device for a few years is being subliminally urged to buy a new model?

In this specific case I think it was just incompetence, but at the same time, one of the selling points of the device was “lasting longer” because it was able to receive updates.

I purposely NEVER connect smart TVs to the internet for this reason. I'd like to get a "dumb" TV but the ones in the sizes I'd like are prohibitively expensive.