If consumers are so "livid", why do they keep buying such games in droves? If it was really such a deal breaker, these games would flop. But they don't, because most consumers don't consider minor bugs and performance issues to be a big problem. 

Releasing a game on time with slight imperfections at least gives consumers the option of getting it at launch or waiting for updates, but a delay removes that choice and forces everyone to wait.

The idea of waiting until a game is flawless is not viable in an age where games are this complex, it leads to ridiculously drawn out productions that not only keep fans waiting, but reduces software output and leads to droughts.

If the Zelda team had kept to a sensible timeframe and finished Breath of the Wild in 2015, for example, we could be looking at a new Switch Zelda game in 2018. By 2021, we could've gotten three Zelda games instead of one or two.

Retro Studios' official account just liked this post... XD

These games are selling less and less with each installment even the so called AAA titiles (Cod, AC, Watch Dogs, Mafia 3 etc...) it's having an effect, releasing broken or flawed game on time may give that option but it can also damage the games' reception as well as the franchise, these aren't slight imperfections like you keep trying to push these are problems that hurt the experience.

The idea of trying to wait until it's flawless is why games like Zelda have been consistently strong for 30 years while other AAAs have come, faded and disappeared before even a decade, people know that when they buy these games no matter what imperfection that has been missed they're as polished as they are quality.

Tbh they can improve their time frame but I wouldn't really want to see 3 Zelda games in one gen, the next Zelda game is already being worked on regardless.

I'm more inclined to attribute those particular declines to COD and AC suffering from serious franchise fatigue after years and years of annual entries, (not to mention the anger and disappointment towards Infinite Warfare) and the first Watch Dogs being massively overhyped and surrounded by bad press over its graphical downgrades.

I'm sure that five or even ten years from now, games with polish issues will still be dominating the charts. The next Elder Scrolls game will launch with more bugs than a square kilometer of Amazon rainforest, but it will sell like crack-laced hotcakes.

Two Zeldas per generation, three years apart, would be quite reasonable the way I see it.

AC and Watch Dogs decline is significantly contributed by the poor quality control to the point Ubisofts' name has become a running joke among gamers for glitchy games as much as Bethesda.

The is only so long you can get away with doing things with bad habits and many so called big AAA franchises of old that have disappeared now are a reference to that, Zelda is much better off not adopting such poor habits becuase their approach how ever long it takes consistently delivers a high quality game and high polish and in some cases is one of the defining games of a gen. It's been doing it since before many of the games you mentioned even existed and will likely be doing it long after some of them have faded or even disappeared all together.

I'd much rather have one really good well polished Zelda game per gen where they've taken their time and fit as much of their intended ideas in it as possible then 2 or 3 that they've rushed out just to meet a deadline for the sake of releasing a Zelda game.

See, people keep saying for at least the last five years that the AAA industry will collapse because of games released unpolished, yet said collapse is still nowhere in sight. Most gamers honestly just seem not to give a shit if their game drops to 25fps sometimes or has minor bugs. Consumers are voting with their wallets, and they're saying that they're fine with it. If it means we get more games, more often, that's a good thing.

Taking five plus years to make a game polished is not a sign of diligence, it's a sign of incompetence and mismanagement. That a 2015 game may not make a March 2017 release window is pitiful, and Nintendo's obsession with OCD perfection has hurt them again and again this generation as their games consistently miss their deadlines. They would be better off getting with the program and following the rest of the industry's lead. After all, most of the industry is doing much better than Nintendo is.

No offence dude but people are saying that because the signs have propped up a while ago, last generation look at how many studios, developers and publishers went under, even today that is still happening. If you think that the hasn't been any problems then I think you've blatently ignored them, most gamers do care as is the case with Ubisoft's games, Mafia and even No Man's Sky being recent examples. Ken Levine a few years back detailed some of the problems when he shut down his studio.

As inefficient as it is it is a sign of diligence when the end product is consistently high quality in all departments so yes it's better this way, most of the industry doesn't make even a third of the money Nintendo does they're not doing better they're stuck in a brutal cycle.

while publishers that are less anal about polish, like Sony, are doing far better.

Umm, do you not realize Sony is just as bad about delaying games?

For one, the Last Guardian has been delayed by what? 6 years? And it released on a completely different console than it was announced for.

The Order, DriveClub, Uncharted 4, Gran Turismo Sport, Horizon have all be delayed, thats just in the last 2-3 years.

Also take a look at sales of Nintendo & Sony published games, its very hard to say Sony is doing better.

That's actually a good point; Sony are pretty shit as well when it coming to getting games done. But they have third parties to bail them out.