Did Atari think little kids would want E.T.?

Were they high when they released Ride to Hell: Retribution?

Did someone die, and their last wish was to have Superman 64 released?

And all dat shovelware... DAT SHOVELWARE!

If there is any ounce of logic to releasing crap like that, please tell me.

Maybe the creators didnt think their creations would be that bad.

Or maybe they invested too much in the crappy games that NOT releasing them would be worse.

No excuse for shovelware though, they can burn in hell.

Well its can make them some money so there's no harm in trying.

That's understandable, if they never release a bad game again. If they do, they're either stupid enough to not realize their games suck, or don't realize they need to invest on other forms of entertainment!

Well I guess if I wrote a book very enthusiastically initially, but later succumbed to writers block and gave up, I still would like someone to read my book even though I know it was not the best I could do.  I could try and fix it up but perhaps lost all joy and motivation to do so.

That or I will take joy in watching people confounded by my spelling errors and plot holes.

I think they release them because they don't know they won't sell before they try.

I still don't know why they made Dark Void, for instance. But I guess it did sell at least enough to make printing the game, if not developing it, worth it. Did anyone like it? No. Was it complete shit? Yes. Is Brad Pitt the most naive, clueless celebrity to ever associate themselves with video games? Probably, but he's not the first. Is this veering off topic? Yes. Should you care? No. Am I boring you? Yes. Do you wish there was an ignore button? Yes. Will I stop now? No.

Think of the children!

That'd be funny. Everyone would be saying "Stupid 12 year olds!" and you'll be like "B*tch you're the one who's 12!"!

Say a game costs $16 million to develop, but then barely scrapes through, or fails QA, do you:

a) delay it and pump more $ into it in the hopes that it'll improve, increasing the risk and potential loss?
b) can it, losing all $16 million?
c) release it as is, hoping to minimise your loss?

A and C are really your only options (unless the game is so bad that it'll do so much brand damage that it'd be better off not even releasing... *cough* Dragon Age 2 *cough*).

Sometimes of course, you're also governed by set dates: financial calendars, competitors release dates, console launches and almost no matter how bad a game is it has to be out the door by then.

Shovelware is different of course; you release the best game you can on the lowest budget you can hoping to take advantage of the naïve.

Sega releases horrible games they know won't sell so they can use the excuse on why they're not releasing the next game in the series. Damn you, Yakuza Dead Souls!!

I suspect that a lot of those horendous games are actually ultra low budget, that some of them actually turn a profit.
Formula: Make a crappy game, talk about it a bit to create mediocre buzz, release it and hope a lot of customers won't pay attention to reviews.
A game like The Fighter Within that is still charting and moving copies, 6 months after it was declared a complete turd.
A game like Ride to Hell, which probably sold more copies because of box art than because of marketing.

I base my thinking on the movies by Uwe Böll, who keeps finding investors after churning out dozens of utterly horendous films. It turns out, he makes huge bucks because of the ultra low budgets...