Patching, in itself, is not the issue
having patches means the software is maintained, which is a Good Thing (TM), because the threat landscape evolves constantly. It is ridiculous to imagine that any group of developers, however smart they may be, could preconceive every single possible threat scenario that will crop up.
Given the complexity required of today's software, that must interface almost with everything under the Sun, some bugs obviously slip through as well. It is nice to have those bugs squashed in a timely manner.
The issue is not with the patching. The issue is with the fuckups that insufficient whiteboarding and testing introduce into patches that pretend to solve something and either don't, or fuck something else up along the way.
I am prepared to accept that a patch does not wholly solve a problem. Writing software is difficult and I know by experience that edge cases are a maddening nuisance to deal with.
I cannot accept that a patch bricks a computer, or otherwise trashes an entire environment. That can only happen when next to no testing was ever done, in a case of "oh that problem ? Just flip the bit to 0 and we're done with it". Seems obvious, but even when it is, test, test and test again, especially when your customer base numbers in the millions.
And I accept that, even when you do test against every single scenario your PC catalogue has, there's always some extreme case that slips through. PCs are the ultimate hardware platform, they can modified in uncountable ways.
But if you fuck up a console, you deserve to be fired, if not shot.