Correct. We were spoiled, plain and simple and
@Ross made it clear if he could do it over he would've lurked more, because I think he realised how far he was down the rabbit hole here with some people too late in the game. Anyone complaining doesn't realise the decades the cricket gaming community have gone with little to no input or interaction with developers. At the very least, maybe a few are finally realizing how good we had it for such a sustained time. Second time around (if there is a second) I expect there will be quite a bit less interaction because it's no doubt taxing dealing with a few folks here and I'm guessing it'll be more like a Reddit AMA type thing where they answer questions over a designated period of time, vs. daily interaction and updates.
...all that wall of text being said; There will be a patch 3. I doubt it's a priority though, they're working on other projects and maybe have one or two guys on it every now and then inbetween lunchtime hookers and blow.
I wouldn't say that we were spoiled. We're not the ones that need the community, loyalty or anything else, they are. They are the ones trying to build that brand, that support and most importantly that loyalty and what should be free advertising. It would be like calling an electorate "spoiled" because their elected member actually appeared once and a while in public. They had been good by modern standards, particularly if your comparison point is one of the bigger franchises, but there are plenty with large amounts of community involvement and discussion.
The big issue there though was that the support and community for the game was hard won through that interaction with the community. Without it, the game would have likely gone approximately nowhere, particularly with it containing all of what, 3 licences (if I recall right), those being for Bradman, the Bradman Oval and the Russian Cricket Team. Particularly with some early issues with the game, the silent treatment, with the troubled past the cricket gaming community has had, could well have killed it before it took it's first steps, particularly with one of their largest markets being seemingly a piracy hotbed.
The thing is, we're now what, over a year from release at this point and some fundamental issues with the game aren't being sorted, and yet again the community is needing to diddle the player attributes to produce a realistic game. The community feedback and interaction while it was at it's peak was good, but was never on the same level as some other companies.
This fear of the piracy boogeyman ultimately seems to have created far more tension, and they ultimately ended up not using the PC platform to the extent they really should, and instead put out a decent, but ultimately half baked edition for the "next gen" consoles.
The thing is, that there was a lot of feedback, but ultimately the same core issues with the game have remained, and we are still after all this time twiddling our thumbs, awaiting the now near mythical patch 3. Whether or not their interests have moved on to other projects is not our business, but ultimately it undermines the value that all the community engagement built up and is potentially harming the 'Don Bradman Cricket' brand itself. With the steps forward the game has provided, this would be a downright disaster.
Ultimately though, with little to no advertising to speak of, a smallish target market and the series itself still very much a work in progress, I'd say if anything winding back community engagement could very well end in tears on both sides.
As for being a taxing experience, if a developer can't discuss things in an open way with their customers without chucking a strop when they get their feelings hurt (and it most definitely is an if, not when), then they are probably in the wrong field. Even the harshest criticism can be valuable, the key is to not get emotional about it, and just try and get to the bottom of it. If someone gets genuinely abusive, just move on, but there is a big difference between abusive and offensive.
Ultimately though it all comes down to business decisions for them, and if they feel that they can achieve more without as much community interaction, that is their choice. Personally I'd take the history of cricket games as a cautionary tale against the "lurk and see" approach, but that's for them to decide.
