Sep 10th 2009 4:17PM Well the only problem is that we become excited for these titles and can't wait for them to come out. The other issue is the example of usage here, we're comparing a patch that released only a day off. This type of mis-judgement isn't the typical resulted time of a push back. When dates are pushed back they are more often pushed back for months.
When you look at it from that perspective. Imagine being an avid fan of Diablo III or StarCraft II, having a date announced, waiting in a crazed state for a year or so to see these titles release, and a month before, have it pushed back by 4 months.
What's even worse, and something that is typical also, is to wait out those 3 months, and have a double push back. Now the date is pushed another 3 months forward. This type of stuff can be pretty upsetting to fans who can do nothing but wait and have their hopes broken.
Blizzard takes the right approach in avoiding all of this disappointment and frustration, considering it is extremely difficult to accurately project real world dates. But what I think they should at least do is give us a year, or half year span of time. That'd be a little better. When you announce something like Diablo III in 2008. Just say, "Early 2011" or "Late 2010" that'd at least help while still avoiding the disappointment.