@Guy N'wah: You are right, good sir. I have simplified the picture for the sake of argument, but what I wanted to point out is that there is no single external entity that acts as a producer. If a big publisher is giving you money to make a game, and if it's your only (or simply major) source of financing, said publisher will be in a position to decide every aspect of the game, following its own business needs. If we're talking about an AAA game, which by definition requires major investment to make (the production of all the assets will be costly, and the whole project will require dozens of people working for 2+ years), the game will be a product like chocolate, beer, wash machines (as @Pajkes put it) - because it could be nothing else. And the main focus of the project will be business, because no one will put millions of $ freely; in general the more money is on the table, the lesser risk is deemed as acceptable. (That's why it's that much harder to get a bank credit for $1,000,000 than $100,000.) And as sad as it sounds, the truth is that, from strictly economic perspective, it's not really the most effective to make a product of high quality. Contrary to what most companies say (especially in ads and commercials), it's all about setting the level of quality that would be just acceptable by the majority of potential customers; it's about finding the optimal point between the cost of producing a product of a given quality and the expected income.
Apart from the fact that the very term 'quality' can be interpreted differently, as it's related to individual preferences and expectations.
Apart from the fact that the very term 'quality' can be interpreted differently, as it's related to individual preferences and expectations.


