Quality is subjective. I cringe when someone turns on Coronation Street, but the truth is they're getting something out of the show that they appreciate and I don't. I am entitled to consider it shit, but it's not objectively shit, nor can it be called 'poor quality'.
There is some element of truth to the idea, but not in the way it's often used. Lisence-based games sell really well for two reasons: they don't always sell directly to the customer, for kids, parents often buy familiar licences and don't worry too much about how good the game was, all it has to do for them is get the kid to shut up for a while. The other reason they sell well is because they come with a mythos the consumer is already familiar with(and enjoy). For people with less passion for games, this trumps the often higher production quality of games with their own mythos.
I'd say the vast majority of the time something sells that you don't like or understand, it's simply because it has something about it that appeals to other people that doesn't appeal to you, but to claim that they are objectively worse is simply snobbery(putting your values above those of others).
A game I'm developing with some friends:
www.xnagg.com/zombieasteroids/publish.htm
It is largely a technical exercise but feedback is appreciated.