For starters, I think that quote should be "a delayed game CAN potentially be good. A rushed game is a bad game forever."
And even then, I think you should be thoughtful about what you call "rushed". What Miyamoto means (and I agree with), is that if features aren't properly tested or have to be cut, then it'll be much harder if not impossible to fix. Then it's better to polish them up before releasing them. But these have to be things that the developer KNOWS IN ADVANCE. And that there is no internal politics that hold the game back (sort of meaning that everyone, from the CEO down to the actual programmer, wants to get it fixed).
As such, diablo 3 (or, in fact, anything blizzard makes) is certainly one of the LAST games you should ever call rushed. Sure, it had its flaws, but these were, in a way, unavoidable flaws. Of course everyone wants to play it on release day, so of course the servers are going to be overflooded. But aside from releasing it on different days (which is getting harder and harder the more online purchases become more common), there is no way around it. And buying roughly twice the server capabilities just to serve a playerload that is only a problem the very first week or so, is insane in a financial way. Same for simcity, for that matter.
This well ties in to the other flaw of the game: it was needed for the trading house, which in itself required the online connection (without it, you can bet that within a few weeks or even days, illegally modded items would trade hands). I agree that the auction house was a mistake...but there was no way to know this for sure in advance. It's easy to look at it and say that it DIDN'T work, but near impossible to predict in advance that it WILL NOT work. And this isn't something blizzard can test, as such features requires the entire internet to test it out.
So...when taking into account that rushing should imply that just the TECHNICAL issues should be fixed, there is also something to be said about marketing. And the general audience as well. We all know that it takes time to create a great game. And the sort of game we want changes over time, which makes predicting how long it'll take a hard guess. The irony is: the more the game aims to be a clone of another game*, the easier it is to estimate. But when games are anticipated, pretty much everyone wants to know the one thing programmers cannot tell them: when it is going to be finished. So marketeers have to take educated guesses at a launch day. And sort of have to remind the programmers that they can't just KEEP adding stuff to the game (which would delay said game).
IMHO, those marketeers don't do a good enough job. I already pointed out the factors that make it hard for them to properly set a launch date, but even then (and even taking into account that writing software is just HARD) they should be able to make better guesses. And why are games always DELAYED and never released "too early"? If you ask me, those guys should (in general) take more time actually spending time with the team discussing roadmaps, time tables and such. Reality is often different, though. And I'm afraid gamers play a part in this (we don't automatically cancel our preorders when we hear a game is delayed. Often it's more of the contrary: the news of a delay is publicity for the game as well, which is generally good).
*watch_dogs, for example, is just Far cry or Assassin's Creed with a hacking submechanic. The entire guesswork mostly comes down to "how big is the open world going to be, and how many minigames/subquests are going to be in it?".
@
BigOnYa:
@
K3Nv2:
@
ZeroT21:
