I think the problem is there wasn’t really any reason to be uncertain about the purchase based on the way the game was portrayed. Then people bought the game and realized that a lot of the features which were shown never made it into the game or just barely made it into the game in a form that was sufficiently different from the feature originally portrayed (sometimes throughout multiple presentations and interviews over a long period of time, sometimes even with videos showing the feature) that the promised (or strongly implied, which seems to be an interpretation at the core of your thesis) feature effectively never made it into the game.

Your entire article can just be summed up as “He never PROMISED you anything by the dictionary definition, these features that are missing were only ever STRONGLY IMPLIED, and even features which WERE clearly “promises” were ACTUALLY implications by the very fact that they were statements made in the course of development and everyone should understand that.”

Let me show you a rewrite of the intro of your article that gets to the heart of the point:

“Take someone who’s thoughts and expectations for a product are not in-line with reality. Someone whose representation of a product are skewed by an unbridled optimism which he communicates to others as an accurate representation of reality. Make him the exclusive promoter of your product and the sole source of information regarding said product. YOU BELIEVED HIM?? LOL YOU FOOLS STOP WHINING LEARN 2 READ BE2WEEN LINES LOL”