Monetization has nothing to do with whether a game is fun. It influences what you're willing to pay.
There's a pretty big difference between the two.
I'm also not talking about whether a game is more fun or less fun. Either it's fun to me or it isn't. The base game may be perfectly fun by itself. Any later content releases might add fun or they may not be fun at all. I remember playing Oblivion and having a great time. Later the Shivering Isles DLC was released and I got that. It was disturbing content that I wish I hadn't purchased. Didn't change that the base game was still fun even if others felt it wasn't full featured because it didn't have the DLCs.
I can agree about bugs to a some degree. Games should be free of bugs that are reasonably expected to be caught in their testing environment. They may not be able to catch all bugs when players are using a PC. They may not catch all bugs in a Massively Multiplayer environment because it's not feasible to set up that many clients in a testing environment. Still those bugs should be few in number and quickly fixed. Some developers are bad about that.
MMORPGs will never feel complete because they're a model that relies on long term content editions. You can't use that as a standard for a MMORPG.
I agree that microtransactions shouldn't be intrusive into the game. Thank you YoshiP for putting your foot down and keeping the cash shop separate from FFXIV other than Dreamstore that has to be intentionally enabled in a specific location. I hate the games where you log in and the first thing you see is a cash shop window. As for corporate greed, most games are made to make money. You're not going to get rid of that outside of the tiny indie developers working on a passion project that have other sources of income. Everyone has bills that need to be paid.
I agree about listening to feedback but with the warning that listening doesn't mean doing what that feedback asks. Not everyone agrees with every suggested change. Not implementing the change or getting a personal response doesn't mean they didn't listen.
That last is subjective and so can't be applied to a specific standard. An element that might feel necessary to you may be a useless distraction to another. Sometimes what players want isn't technologically feasible for all player clients the game is intended to be played on. Most game developers aren't going to focus on creating games that only 2% of the player community can play because only they own or can afford the necessary hardware and a good 90% of that 2% may have no interest in the game genre.
Part of why Baldur's Gate 3 has turned out so well is that it's been a playable game for almost 3 years and had been in development 4 years prior to that. Their kickstarter supporters have had access to the game since 2020 to give them feedback prior to the initial release. It's difficult for a company to have a product in development for that amount of time unless they get the financial backing before release of the game. Such backing is a risk since you don't know the game will ever be released. It's worked out in the case of BG3 but how many other games have gone the same route and either failed to end up released or are still in development testing after a decade?
Are you willing to risk some of your money to help a game meet your release standards when there's no guarantee that release will ever happen?\
How does that work out when you've got 2 players attacking the same creature and one player is set to Very Easy and the other is set to Nightmare (or whatever the difficulty modes are named)?
It sounds a bit like WoW's scale to player level system which didn't work out particularly well (at least in my opinion). The net effect was lower level players frequently ended up more powerful than the higher level players depending on what gear was equipped (think Crystal Tower types of power difference).
Or are most open world zones in LotRO so empty that the chances of encountering another player are small? I remember giving it a try back around 2015 and was turned off by the predatory paywalls. Even then I was encountering fewer players in the open world than I do here. I have no clue how good (or bad) it is now.
Yet here you are paying a subscription. Thank you for your support!
What happened a decade ago really doesn't matter.
The game has changed since then.
The development team has changed since then.
The player base has changed since then.
What does matter? Are you having fun is what matters.
Your choice to keep paying for the game even though you're not having fun anymore.