Yes and no.

For me, the likelihood I will buy a game increases up to and including the day of release. Literally the next day this begins to diminish, and the longer I don't buy it (for reasons such as bugs, stability, low content, etc), the less likely it becomes that I will ever buy it, unless there's an excellent sequel and/or it becomes a cult classic despite the jank. I would strongly prefer to buy games at launch because of this, but the state most games release in makes is an unpleasant experience.

I do like it when I don't "waste" or "ruin" the game for myself by playing it in a bad state. BUT at the same time, this too can be quite fun. Because in "fixing" the game, sometimes too much changes. Recent games like Cyberpunk and Total War: Warhammer 3 changed significantly since launch. Warhammer 3 especially was brutal for the first month because AI was hyper-aggressive towards the player, amongst other things. But this resulted in a very challenging, very memorable campaign. It wasn't the same after the fixes. And same with Cyberpunk, it just didn't feel quite right once they implemented the fixer progression system.

So it cuts both ways for me.

Having said that, lately I've been pretty patient. Too many games are releasing in garbage state (but with fully working in-game cash shop, like Darktide a month ago). So I buy a few years down the line, for $20 or less, instead of paying full price. Not ideal for everyone involved - I hate waiting, and game devs don't get paid the full amount. But as long as game devs insist on releasing broken, unfinished titles, I don't see that I have much of a choice. I certainly don't want to financially support that kind of behaviour.