CountryMike said:
You could easily turn that around and tell companies to deal with piracy because "it's life"
And that's what the smart ones do.
Times are changing and those who don't change with them will become extinct. Like dinosaurs
The difference is clear. The company is well within their legal and moral rights. It's their product, they can sell it with NO advertising if they like. They can choose not to hand out review copies to published reviewers. They can choose not to have box art, demos, or anything. And they can charge what they like.
Your choices as a consumer are a) buy or b) don't buy. If you buy and then regret it, neither party has stepped outside the legal or moral right. Any unfortunate side effects (called "buyers' remorse") are just part of the learning process. You can make different choices in the future, or petition the company to offer more information in the future. Or just wait longer and ask people who are playing the game.
There are a multitude of sources of information available to prevent most cases of "This isn't what I thought it was." It's just that greed and impatience motivate folks to skip those, and then the same greed and impatience motivate them to blame their own impulsive mistakes on others.
If you pirate it, you ARE stepping outside your rights. It's not your program to take, to copy, or to distribute. It's someone else's. That is the clear difference when it comes to trying to tell the developer's "That's just life." No, it's feeble-minded justification from selfish brats who feel entitled to forcibly take things that are not theirs.