I was thinking about this from another thread recently and I took notice of the common denominator amongst developers who recieve a certain amount of reverence in the gaming community. Some examples of those developers are Valve, Nintendo, Insomniac, Bungie, etc...

And the common point is that these developers are generally known for attention to detail and strict quality control. I personally think Valve & Nintendo are the two biggest sticklers on those points but I'm sure there are cases to be made on all accounts.

But my point is that with the great developers focusing on details and delivery of fantastic product it bothers me that some developers continually push a product out the door regardless of how far it is from completion. And if that means an incomplete product and consumers getting significantly less than what they expected its "tough luck" as far as they are concerned.

When it comes to game development it might lead to longer production times but I personally don't have a problem with that. How many people would be bothered if it took a developer 2 years to make every game they made if it always came out at the quality level of a Valve, Nintendo, Insomniac, etc...?? Clearly 2 years isn't required but just for the sake of this hypothetical question, would that bother you? Or would you be fine with small stream of AAA titles year round?

Perhaps it is my consumer viewpoint but with Nintendo's PR department drumming up great stories for its good deeds and what seems to be a positive reaction to MS's recent "apology gift" from the XBL snaffu over X-mas it seems to me that companies have all the proof they need that taking care of your consumers is profitible and more importantly to those accountants it is more profitable than being a cutthroat "kill or be killed" type company.

Perhaps there is another side to this but I think that any strategy that involves pissing off the source fo your cashflow is shortsighted to say the least. Maybe I'm just ranting a bit but I figured I would share my thoughts nevertheless.

Strong attachment can also develop from good marketing campaigns (though I can't think of video game examples). The quality of Apple software and hardware is initially poor, and the customer relations are also bad, but Apple has the most devoted fanbase of any company.

When it comes to games, you need to be recognized before making a bad game will hurt you.  "Pissing off the source of your cash flow" is only destructive if they can remember your name to hold a grudge.  At the same time as you need to be recognizable, you need to be known for moderate-high quality but not super high quality.  Companies like Nintendo are good examples of this as people would quickly forgive Nintendo if it turns out one bad game among its vast library of great games.  Wheras companies like Sega are good examples going the other way.  If they make a game that's only decent, it's labelled as bad.  

As for "AAA title" frequency, higher is better.  If a developer only needs 2 years to turn out a quality title then that's what they should have.  If a developer needs 3 years to churn out a quality title but only gets 2, then it's not a quality title anymore.  All of this is usually dictated by money however so don't expect things to change very quickly.

yeah, I would much rather prefer a high quality game that is delayed than a unpolished game rushed (such as SSBB)

Polish is one of the most important aspects of a game to me. Screen tearing, texture pop-in, frame dips, etc. all take you out of the game experience, and they are all preventable given enough development time.

This is one of the reasons that I love Uncharted so much. It's high level of polish makes the game a constantly enjoyable experience throughout.  However, screen tearing was als my primary complaint while playing Heavenly Sword.

That's one of the main things I love about Nintendo's work, the QC. I can't think of a single Nintendo game that has had frame dips, texture pop-in, etc.