[supermw]

I don't think this discussion will be as interesting as people think.

When a game or piece of software you write is shit, you know it's shit, unless you are completely delusional. Thus once it's actually released you'll probably feel some relief that at least it's finally done and you can move on with your life, putting it behind you. Negative reviews aren't a surprise, they are expected. And in large companies there must be some satisfaction being able to say "I told you so" to fools who thought otherwise.

I think it'd be more interesting to find out what it's like being a small indie developer who banks it all on one game they've been working on for years, and then when it finally releases it's mediocre and mostly ignored, making little to no money.

[scoutt]

But I don't think it has to be necessarily shit. It can be a good game, and you can be proud of it, but at some point a manager comes in and says "upper floors want to add microtransactions and DLCs here and there". You know as a gamer that it's (or it will be perceived as) a shitty practice and will be negatively received.

That could be for example a nice anecdote to tell (maybe the EA developer in the upper comments?).

[rizzin]

Unless it's a "game as a service" and even after release you have to keep on polishing the turd.