A game bought on release day frequently downloads a substantial update before it can be played. This is a consequence of two schedules that no longer align, rather than a sign that the game was abandoned.
The disc is finished long before the release
Physical copies have to be manufactured, packaged and shipped to retailers worldwide, which takes weeks and cannot be compressed at the end.
The version pressed onto the disc is therefore the build that existed at the manufacturing deadline, not the one the team considered finished.
Everything fixed after that point has to arrive some other way, and a downloadable update is the only route available.
The last weeks are the most productive
Testing at scale only becomes possible once a game is complete, and that period generates a large volume of reports about problems that could not have been found earlier.
Fixes made in those weeks are often the difference between a rough experience and a smooth one, particularly on hardware configurations the team could not test broadly.
Discarding that work because the discs had already been pressed would make the released version worse for no benefit to anyone.
Certification adds another gap
Console platforms require a build to pass technical checks before release, and that process takes time during which development does not stop.
A build submitted for certification is effectively frozen, so any issue found afterwards has to wait for a patch regardless of how simple the fix is.
The submission deadline therefore creates a second point at which the shipped version and the current version diverge.
Always-connected consoles made it possible
Earlier hardware had no reliable way to update a game, so whatever shipped was permanent and the schedule was built around that fact.
Once consoles were routinely online, the deadline stopped being final, and planning adjusted to treat the release as a stage rather than an endpoint.
This removed a hard constraint that had previously forced difficult decisions about what to cut, which is both the benefit and the risk of the change.
The practice can be abused
Because a patch is available, there is a temptation to ship a version that is known to be unfinished and to promise repairs afterwards.
Players experience the difference clearly: a patch that polishes is accepted, while one that supplies missing functionality is not.
Reviews and refund policies have made this an expensive strategy, and the current pattern is more often a genuine catch-up than a deliberate deferral.