Why are our options “broken or not at all”? I’m thinking of various specific examples, but you don’t need them, because you have seen it in almost every game. I have seen explicit developer statements that if the new stuff has no game-crashing bugs, it will go live, even though there are large known bugs. Because you can just eat the parts of your dinner that have no cockroaches.
We can fix balance once it’s live and we see how the players are using it. There are some exploits, but we’ll just suspend accounts if people use them (also, don’t tell people what not to do, because then everyone will know about the exploits). Let’s release the content even though it is literally impossible to complete it, because we can probably fix that before too many people get to the completely broken parts. Nah, don’t bother to update “Known Issues” on the website, I’m sure we’ll get to it quickly.
Fast, cheap, good: I wish we could get two. I read Scott’s comment as saying we demand all three and sometimes get zero. Quite often, we are getting one, and it is usually cheap. Hey, for $15/month, you would have trouble finding any better outside a public library. But updates come late and are still buggy after the patch to fix the bugs caused by the patch to the update. You’re paying for crap and you’re getting it. You’re paying $50 for crap when a new box of it comes out, and you knew from the beta that it was still buggy crap.
I suppose we can compare the industry to baseball. There, you are a great hitter if you only fail two-thirds of the time.