ErikVinoya :
I think this is due to the fact that its much easier to release patches today (internet) than it was on the 80s/90s, so why not take advantage of the technology.
This assumes your customers are willing to WAIT for a solution. If I go to a store and buy a product, I need to know that product works, not that, if I pay them today, eventually they'll get it working.
The "agile" methodology you reference presumes that someone is paying you to develop the software. You don't have a viable product until the end. If I go to a store, and buy a pre-packaged game off the shelf (Yes, some people still do that), I'm not anticipating I need to fund the Development of said game! I just want a game that works. I'll wait six months and THEN give you my money, not spend the money now, and wait six months for something useable.
If you want someone to fund the development, that's an agreement you must make up front, not saddle your customers with, by surprise, at what the customers think is "the end".
"I'm going to sell you a car for $30,000. It only has three wheels, no engine, and the seats aren't installed yet, but man, would you listen to that RADIO!" I think the problem is, the people deciding NOT to deliver final content at first, aren't really asking the customers if that's what they want, it just happens to be what they give the customers.
Video games used to be fixed cost. I.e. new titles had a general pricing range ($30-60). You bought a game, and that was that. Now, you pay $60 for a game, they offer a few patches, and then the functionality you actually wanted is a $15 DLC. That benefits the developers, but NOT the customers, not in any viable way whatsoever. Oh sure, you get a game "early", did that really change your life, if for 6 months the game was crap?
</rant> <!-- sorry -->