Then perhaps, Guerrilla Games is one of the exceptions. Regardless, I've seen tons of games over 3 decades that were pushed out too early and were crap to play, if you could even play them due to DRM and major bugs.

I've been playing computer games for over 30 years. The point is this...game companies focus more on the $$, than the game itself, in many cases. Some reasons these companies fail have already been stated. Honestly, they restrict themselves with incredible deadlines in order to save money. After all, they are running a business. Yet, they tend to miss the point. Blizzard is one of the very few companies I know of that actually bump a deadline in order to "get it right." No, I'm not saying their games are perfect or error free, but the imperfections and errors tend to be fairly minor. This gets to my main point, which is that almost all game companies, including EA, SquareEnix, Ubisoft and many others choose to put out games that are just plain aweful. They either don't run well, have horrid controls or, perhaps, look good, but aren't even fun. The bigger companies, like the ones I just mentioned should know better and do better. There isn't any excuse for it. If you're putting out many titles at once, but run like junk, etc., then consider paring down to just one or two really good projects (like Blizzard, for example). I've seen the, "let's create a bunch of half-done games and push them out really fast, flood the market with our games, market really hard, charge as much as we can and see what sticks" approach over the years. It's simply not excusable to charge more for the many bad products out there. I'm not sympathetic to see the games industry suffer, as I've spent way too much on games over 30 years that either didn't work, didn't work well, weren't well supported, or weren't as advertised. In the immortal words of a very wise man (Flav-O-Flav), "Don't believe the hype!"