Well if the game goes through the proper testing and feedback process then they should have a good idea.

@konnichiwa: In some interview with Blizzard, one of the devs told about Lost Vikings, he told that the game was just about ready, when they showed the game to someone (can't recall who) and to tell his opinion.
The guy took the game to his home, played it and criticized it so, that the vikings should look different (and i believe there were other things too that he told to get better). The Blizzard guys almost got mad for telling their "masterpiece" to get better, but the guys almost insisted things to be fixed. Blizzard fixed the game when realizing that the guy was right and the game in question isn't known for how it sucks.

They do realise. Thats why some games arent sent out to reviewers before release, so that nobody will realise how utter shit the game is.

That Pamela Anderson game springs to mind

Speaking as a person who works in the film industry in my country, when your creating art, you're generally too close to your own work to realise just how good or bad it is. So its always good to get the opinions of people that aren't making the film as they wont overlook flaws. However its also your own work so its a balancing act between what you want and the criticism you get. But at the end of the day, its a business and you have to make a return on investment. Very few film studios and I assume games developers can afford to scrap projects a few months before release like Blizzard can.

I think in some instances it is time constraints, and sometimes the developers just think they have the best game ever created, but it sucks. Kinda like movies.

I doubt it.

They are normally happy with their games.

A) They simply had a low budget. They're happy with the quality of their games, compared to the budget.

B) They believe that it is suited well for their targetted part of the userbase.

1) It could start off as budget shovel ware for a big name that's garunteed to sell [like something popular with the kids] that they could just try to make money from to work on better games. There for it is planned shit.

2) They realize how crappy it is during development... but then it's too late to turn back after all the money put in.... so they hype the game up as much as possible.

Yes, they know it and sadly, most don't care. A bad movie is one thing since you only pay up to $10 or so and going to a movie is often more about the social interaction of going with friends. Also a bad movie can be just a matter of opinion whereas a truly bad and broken game is just terrible and nobody will ever enjoy it. While many publishers don't care, it would be nice if the console manufacturers would truly act on quality control. I'm not talking about medicore games but the horrible games that can't score higher than a 2.0 or 3.0 in any single review.

What I find most upsetting about it is that they know games cost consumers $50-60, yet don't care about releasing a game that contains numerous glitches and is generally unplayable. It was especially bad when I was a kid during the NES days, looking back now. Back then, games were mostly aimed at children. I find it sad that companies wouldn't care about releasing garbage that some kid was going to ask his parents for, not knowing it was bad. The internet wasn't there to look up info on a game. I remember getting a few clunker games and being upset about it knowing I could've had something better. Instead I had a $40 dust collector.

I think the guys at Ubisoft know when they are making a game with a "Z" at the end of it, it gonna be a piece of crap shovelware. But hey, it pay the bills, right?