Well, if we only "watch" games and don't "buy" them, then how long before even independent design houses dry up and we have no PC games left at all to play except shooters and click fests?
There's a word for what you're talking about here: Charity. There are studios that operate on this principle, like Data Realms and Bay12. Labors of love, often open source, developed by a single person or very small distributed team. They're either free to play and supported by charitable donations, or hover around a $5-10 price point which amounts to the same thing because it's presented as helping finish development of the game rather than purchasing a finished product.
Last time I checked there was not a "Donate" paypal button on Stardock's site, and it costs a lot more than $10 to download Elemental.
I was flush with cash and blinded by nostalgia for Master of Magic when I shelled out $80 plus shipping for the special edition. I also paid that money for a shot at getting in on the beta, which I knew would not be fun (though I secretly hoped otherwise, and to be honest it was in those brief periods between crashes), but it was worth it for a glimpse at the game in it's early stages and the chance to help ensure it met my expectations. I almost feel a bit guilty that I had to drop out of beta shortly after I got in due to other demands on my time, as if I'm in part to blame for the state in which it shipped.
Because the state in which it shipped is not that of a finished game. I'm fine with this, since I've already committed to paying for beta access. As far as my pocket book is concerned, the game hasn't really been released yet and I'm still helping work on the beta. What boggles me is the number of people who profess to believe this game is fit for a $50 price tag and full release to people who aren't knowingly paying to beta test.
As fans and detractors alike have noted, there's huge potential here. The unit design system is the skeleton of something great (my dream being something like SMAC's system), the magic system is a great framework upon which to build, the research system is pretty solid though lacking in variety at the top end, and the tactical battle system will be pretty cool though hampered by issues with the unit and magic systems. But that's just it: it's all potential. None of the many subsystems of the game feel incomplete, and huge cracks show through wherever they hook up.
What this is, is your opinion. I have found it addictive, fun as hell, and having a huge replay value. It sounds like most detractors are still complaining about ver. 1.0...as of 1.06, the game is pretty darn good.
I mean this sincerely, to all of those professing to love the gameplay as is: What are you doing that's so fun? I honestly hope you've noticed something I've overlooked that adds spice to the experience.
Addictive I'll grant you, but so far the play for me has been more compulsive than entertaining, even in that smooth period between starting the game and when it eventually chokes around turn 150-200. I've found the shard bug, the shrinking unit bug, the passive wildlife bug/behavior and the alternately timid/suicidal AI combine to produce a rather bland play session that has me clicking the turn button hundreds of times hoping something interesting will happen before eventually just sending my sovereign, his summoned units and whatever troops I have laying around off to single-handedly conquer every nation on the planet, or until my turn button goes permanently grey and I have to start over again.