That's what people asked for before and also what we got, "Early Access" games. But instead of getting games that steadily improve radically over a long period of time, you get unfinished games that get a bit of polish before "1.0" is released as a marketing update almost.

Of couse, there are a few exceptions to this rule, like HNs favorite; Factorio, and Kerbal Space Program, Prison Architect, Rimworld are a few other examples. But most Early Access games released are in reality excuses for releasing something unfinished early, and only do small changes after that.

Almost all indie games seem to be doing early access these days and I agree that it's a good idea in many cases. In a narrative game like Cyberpunk, however, I want the game to be right at launch because that's when I'll be playing it and I'll probably only play once.

Not in this case: it's a large and complex adventure game that most people will only play once or (if obsessive) a few times with major plot and character variants, not a puzzle or strategy game that is meant to be replayed over and over again, enjoyed at launch, and enjoyed again after updates.

Only the "maximum viable product", the best possible version of the game within budget and technical limitations, is relevant.

Didn't No Man's Sky go down that route?

If properly managed, sure. The problem here is that its been reported that the studio has been crunching and working 6 day weeks under the assumption that it was the final push for nearly a year now, but release keeps getting pushed back, for the third time now.

how does this make sense for a single-player rpg? most videogame sales happen within one or two months of release, and most people are not going to replay this kind of game unless they really like it.

this is pretty much the only release I'm looking forward to this year, and I very much appreciate that they are pushing it back until they feel it is finished.

God forbid.