I agree that they need to put their foot down with publishers, but we know for sure that Ubisoft developers their games on a yearly cycle for profit scheduling reasons. I doubt highly that Microsoft or Sony would slap them on the wrist for that, pending that its patched in due time. Sony and (later)Microsoft have created a level playingfield for third party where their games and hardware could compliment one another opposed to Nintendos dictatorial rule over the Industry once was rampant. I agree with the fact that it could seem like they spoil them, but really...they could ignore consoles and just put their games on PC exclusively like the 80's and 90's where the PC realm and console realm were for a better part fairly seperate in offerings. The thing about consoles that they like though is the audience. They give them the profits they need to expand and the games a featured in the living room rather than on a computer screen. 

What does that even mean?

Rein it in how? Should 3rd parties stop making games more desireable than most first party?

So? I don't remember Sonic Boom being a crucial part of any Nintendo Direct, unlike Sony and Microsoft who helped market Destiny and the like.

Maybe they should. Some kind of quality control is sorely needed.

Its kind of obvious by now that Ubisoft has to meet deadlines to record profit. Thats the reason why they launched the game and just patched it after. Lucky for me I bought the game late.

Ubisoft isn't the only offender though; releasing games in an unfinished state has become an industry-wide epidemic.

Indeed, if that's not a clear message that broken games are OK to release I don't know what is. Gamers should demand that Sony and MS get their house in order before they start demanding that SOny and MS exert some quality control on 3rd parties.

******

Ultimately all these comnpanies know gamers are suckers and they'll buy broken shite because for years that's what they have been doing. And the advent of downloadable patches for consoles just makes it even more acceptable to release beta, or even pre-beta quality games. It's a tragic running gag with some companies.Bethesda has a notorious reputation for releasing buggy, glitchy games, yet they still sell those games  by the millions and make substantial profits. Why change when what you're doing is working a treat in the profit department?

Nintendo fans are fortunate that Nintendo cannot afford to piss gamers off with broken releases, because their fan base is small enough as it is, driving people twards the compettion with buggy releases would be death.

The competition is too fierce for Sony or MS to go it alone by forcing better QC on 3rd party products. MS and Sony would have to agree on a MOU that they will both enforce a 3rd party QC policy which ensures better performing launch products. But what are MS and Sony going to do when they have special marketing deals on 3rd party multiplats like Destiny and AC? Imagine if a 3rd party QC MOU forced ACU to miss its launch schedule when MS had bascially based its entire holiday hardware sales strategy on the ACU bundle. Pushing ACU to a December, or even January, launch would have been an utter disaster for MS. Millions of Xb one's sitting in ACU themed boxes clogging up the supply channels until Ubi got its shit together and produced a properly functioning game. And MS having to suddenly try to pump out XB ones in plain green boxes in order to meet holiday demand. And what if MS just pushed foward with a buggy release of ACU, because you can't hold back the tide of an exclusive bundle, would Sony stick to principles and delay the launch on PS4 until Ubi had put a properly functioning game on disc, thereby making ACU a times exclusive for Xb one for most or all of the holiodays? That's a bold and risky move, which would likely benefit MS, because at the end of the day Xb one buyers will get a properly function game at the same time, or sooner, than PS4 buyers. So Sony gains nothing in any practical sense by delaying the release.

And obviously MS and Sony don't have much incentive to act, because right now Nintendo does not present any kind of 3rd wave threat.

If only people would stop buying games day 1 from publishers with a known reputation for releasing broken games.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. If you* buy one broken game on day 1 from a publisher and then buy another and another and another all on day 1 and expect the publisher to change, then you really are insane.

*Not you as in you specifically.

Publishers are really to blame for broken games and the majority of gamers reinforce their behavior/company policy. They love their deadlines and will just do day 1 patches with further patches down the line if the game isn't working right. Plenty of gamers will forgive or forget if it works enough. Even if the game isn't quite working.

I don't know where I brought up Destiny in my comment. Additionally, Destiny may be terribly uninspired and light on content but it can hardly be called broken, it seems to work perfectly fine.

You stated, and I quote:

"I know they rely on third parties to sell consoles, but why did they approve of broken games like Assassins Creed Unity get released? Do they beta test the games before release, or do they just let games get released?"

They approve of "broken" games like Unity for the same reason Nintendo approved a disaster like Sonic Boom, because denying such high profle titles would prove disastrous from a business standpoint. It is not Sony's, Microsoft's or Nintendo's job to protect the consumer from low quality games, it is up to the individual.