Cyberpunk 2077 is at this point an infamously broken game that as of my writing this is still not digitally available on PlayStation Network (though that may have to do more with the refund stunt that CDPR pulled than the quality of the product.) On base Xbox One and PS4 it was apparently pretty bad, but I played it on Xbox Series X and on the 9th gen consoles, PC, and even the half-step consoles (PS4 Pro and Xbox One X) it was a pretty functional game. It definitely had glitches and issues, and I think the PC version is much more YMMV than most games are these days because it plays very badly with certain set ups, but most people were able to get through it and roll credits, especially after the first few weeks of patches.
Compare that to Outriders. This was a game that due to its always online architecture was literally unplayable for a good chunk of its launch weekend, just not letting you boot into a game. It had fewer in-game glitches, like enemies with bad pathing or important quest NPCs not spawning or what have you, but playing on Xbox Series X I experienced a couple crashes and a lot of server boots, and I am not alone in my experience. Outriders has also had a particularly nasty bug that wipes people's equipment if there's an issue while logging into a game, and that's really horrible in a looter shooter and even more broken than the progress blocking bugs that cropped up in some versions of Cyberpunk. They say they'll restore the equipment and maybe they will, but at this point I'm willing to say that the game launched broken and clearly needed more time, just like Cyberpunk.
Watch Dogs: Legion had a nearly equal number of issues on launch, including a bug that prevented progress from saving. The multiplayer was delayed from the game's launch and then delayed again, only recently becoming available and even then without some of the activities available. A lot of people who played the game on launch got burned by losing hours of progress with no chance of recovery (unlike Cyberpunk where many of the game breaking bugs did get fixed relatively soon, though not all, and Outriders where they say that the equipment should be recoverable, though we haven't seen it yet.) Ubisoft launched Assassin's Creed: Valhalla in an almost equally broken state, with a ton of progression blocking bugs and other problems, though I haven't read about the "no save" issues that plagued Legion.
None of this is a defense of Cyberpunk 2077, which should not have launched in the condition it did and deserved the condemnation, but I do think it's worth talking about how the discourse around these three other games, and many of the other games that launch broken, is so different from that around Cyberpunk. It's true that Cyberpunk is taking a long time to fix, unlike these other games that had most of their bugs patched out more quickly (though none of them is in perfect working order yet) and that's part of it. But I think a large part is about expectations. Cyberpunk didn't cost more than these games (Outriders was "free" on Game Pass, which blunted criticism a bit, but $60 on other systems; Valhalla and Legion were sold with various Ubisoft season passes and Deluxe Edition shenanigans,) It isn't that it was "more" of a scam, and CDPR did actually work to get people refunds (despite the way that backfired) unlike Ubisoft and Square Enix who just promised to fix the games while they counted the boatloads of cash they made from selling substandard products.
I think that Cyberpunk was a victim of its own hype. It promised an amazing and revolutionary experience and it offered up a reflavored Fallout game with fewer choices and...nearly as many bugs as a traditional Fallout game, a series known for launching broken. It's not that Cyberpunk doesn't deserve the criticism (Outer Worlds proved that you can launch a Fallout style game in good working order if you scope it properly and use the right tech) it's more that the differences in reaction are a result of CDPR's reputation, its promises and hype cycle, and the panicked refund promise that mostly made things worse.
My take on all of this is both that other games should have received some of the criticisms that Cyberpunk did (many Bethesda games are still broken to this day, and games like Batman: Arkham Origins never had all their game breaking bugs patched out) and that Cyberpunk doesn't deserve to be seen as some uniquely broken piece of garbage but rather a part of a larger narrative about how games are launched and managed these days. I think a lot of people see Cyberpunk as the game that broke the camel's back, figuratively, but I think instead it's treated as more of an outlier than it really is.
It's clear at this point that the industry is not going to change unless consumers make them, and it doesn't seem like consumers plan to do so. People are still pre-ordering games (I am guilty of this myself from time to time) despite how busted a lot of them come out and despite the fact that on PlayStation there's no reliable way to refund them even if they're busted (PC and even Xbox are a bit better about this.) Even as the quality of launch software has gotten worse consumers have gotten fewer and fewer rights. I'm old enough to remember when almost all games were boxed retail products and most stores would take them back soon after launch even for quality reasons, and almost always if you said that they didn't work on your system. Now you can buy games that flat out don't work or delete your saves and the only recourse is often to wait for a patch.
The discourse around Outriders is that it's a fun but flawed game and a good fit for Game Pass. More attention should be paid to the fact that it's a broken mess that could delete your progress after 100 hours. Those things are being said, but they are a much smaller part of the discourse than Cyberpunk's issues were around that game. We should not lose our outrage just because a lot of us got it on a subscription service or because we anticipated less for the product.