> It is not necessarily true that making a product better and delaying shipping is long term better for the company.
a perfect game released later may either become a classic that has huge long tail potential. A early-to-market game may produce a short hit/fad that passes.
It's almost random which will happen - as those doing these sorts of judgements prior to actually releasing have their own personal biases which can cloud their judgement one way or another.
Or, as is more common, the people working on a game have way more of a perfectionist streak than is worthwhile given the audiences.
What I always say in these situations: if two weeks worth of work would be the difference between a smash hit and a bomb, then who the fuck screwed up so bad to prioritize those work items to the last two weeks before launch?
If someone really messed up that badly, they should be called out. More often, those last few features really don't matter, and shipping is better than waiting. My experience is all with games that have digital updates, to be fair, shrink wrapped stuff may have different constraints (but similar questions about prioritization).
Of course people can misjudge the details. But that doesn't mean they are deliberately sacrificing the long term for the short term. It just means they are mistaken.
rushing a product out, putting extra pressure on your engineers, squeezing them, is always a sacrifice and a risk. and it's always a long-term loser. you can get away with it a few times, if you do it every single time your engineers will burn out or revolt if the product failure doesn't do it for them.
a perfect game released later may either become a classic that has huge long tail potential. A early-to-market game may produce a short hit/fad that passes.
It's almost random which will happen - as those doing these sorts of judgements prior to actually releasing have their own personal biases which can cloud their judgement one way or another.