1: Microsoft waived the cost of the first patch....so your cost estimate is bull.
That statement from Microsoft is nonsense. "They decided not to patch the game, they could have but they didn't want to." Yeah, right. And just because Fish knew going in what the cost would be to update the game, it doesn't make the price fair, especially not for a really small company. What was he supposed to do? You just have to release it and hope everything works. And if you can't afford the 80k bill of two patches then I guess you're F'd in the A.
2: Polytron has had all the time of development, in-house troubleshooting, Microsoft certification, and play testing to get it right the first time. They, instead, chose to put out a broken product.
3: Polytron was given another chance to fix their broken product, was given time to find and fix all the errors....instead they decided to not value the extra time and free development of this patch and released yet another broken product.
I understand that microsoft's price for patches seems steep, but this is because they don't want idiots releasing half-finished bug fests on their popular xbla service, and screwing Microsoft and the customer over with the costs related to storing and releasing patches. Microsoft wants their customers to feel safe and secure that they aren't going to have their game saves deleted, or their consoles lock up due to shitty software.
Phil should just keep his whiny mouth shut and be thankful that Microsoft gave his team all that they got. There are plenty of "indie" developers out there that would kill for the opportunity to sell their ideas to a large market.
Also, it costs good money to host and distribute patches to millions of people...why shouldn't the party responsible for the necessity of these patches pay part of that cost?