I don't think it's exaggerated too much. Assassin's Creed Unity is the big one this year most notable for it. I suspect Halo MCC's issues could be due to this as well. I remember when it was announced being surprised and impressed that they were releasing what sounded like such a big project so quickly... and after seeing the problems maybe it makes sense that I was surprised - Microsoft probably realised they couldn't ride out the holiday without a bigger exclusive the way Sony could, and so the November 2014 released date was set, even if they were unprepared.

Also I think it's worth noting that just because games turned out fine when they were released doesn't mean they didn't go through the same rushed development as others. Sometimes people are pressured to create something quickly and they somehow manage to get it done. Which might seem like there's no problem, but it's a question of the risk of releasing broken games. This year maybe it was Assassin's Creed and Halo MCC, next year it could be something else.

I don't know what can actually be done about it though. We just need to wait until they release enough problematic games and people stop buying them at launch, so that it becomes unprofitable to just pump money into AAA titles and marketing and not worry too much about fixing bugs. Or else they can keep the rate of problematic big game launches low enough (or the consumers will just be stupid enough to keep handing them money regardless) that it will remain profitable, and it will just continue.

I've been guilty of blaming the developers for releasing broken games without realizing the pressures of working in an industry that demands meeting a deadline.

I know now where to point my finger.

Quantity & rush are for sure problem.

Here is my favorite shocking. MCC lol. Ok, 4 remastered games in one disc much appreciate, but multi player... Omg, i know what happened. Aren't they suppose to focus on single game Halo 2 remake once they finished development of campaign mode then they can have freshly spare time to develop multi player mode? Sheesh, Microsoft.

DIdn't you already know that it's always Marketing's fault?

This whole subject though is why I have never minded legitimate delays.  The delay of Raymen Legends (Wii U) I did not consider legitimate.  Nearly every Zelda game ever produced I consider legitimate delays (most Nintendo delays I suppose since they rarely have to patch for stability).

Just my 2 cents

Not shocked at all... I thought everyone knew that publishers are the ones that own the product.

I don't want a second industry crash, because I don't buy games DAY 1, much less if the covers have a western publisher logo printed. But it'd be great if some companies when out of business.

I don't think anyone would ever blame the dudes actually working on the games. We all know it's publisher pressure to get them out fast.

Perhaps this will open the eyes of some that continually blame developers when the blame almost always resides squarely on the publishers. The pressure to release these games whether they are ready or not has become an epidemic. Hopefully, there will be a breaking point where the publishers start to see the financial effects (the only effect they are going to care about) and are forced to listen to developers that are telling them many of these games are not ready.

Preferably, before it ruins our beloved industry.

"Third-party developers are usually called upon by a video game publisher to develop a title for one (or more) systems. Both publisher and developer have considerable input in the game's design and content. However, the publisher's wishes generally override those of the developer.

The business arrangement between the developer and publisher is governed by a contract, which specifies a list of milestones intended to be delivered over a period of time. By updating its milestones, the publisher verifies that work is progressing quickly enough to meet its deadline and can direct the developer if the game is not meeting expectations. When each milestone is completed (and accepted), the publisher pays the developer an advance on royalties. Successful developers may maintain several teams working on different games for different publishers. Generally, however, third-party developers tend to be small, close-knit team. Third-party game development is a volatile sector, since small developers may be dependent on income from a single publisher; one canceled game may be devastating to a small developer. Because of this, many small development companies are short-lived."

Qouted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_developer

I can understand the importance of milestones and a deadline but sometimes a game needs some more work. A company can choose to release it anyway fully understanding that could irk the consumers or they hold back the game and probably some people within the company. 

I think it just depends on how the developer and publisher relationship and how each company likes to run itself.

That's nothing new. It's been known for like forever.

In the 80's that's how Atari and the others crashed the Industry and that Nintendo got the door wide open to come in NA