Yeah In an ideal world, every announced game would come in at budget, be well received critically and commercially, and be technically sound.
But in the real world, such a product is, frankly, an exception. "Having a lot of money" doesn't forgoe the difficulty of delivering a good product, ontime, and at budget.
its funny you bring up MCC, because they spent a lot of money bringing that game to market, and it was a technical peice of shit, but they CHOSE TO release it anyway and took a massive blow to credibility.
We've had Quantum Break, which had development hurdles, MS stuck with it, spent boatloads, and eventually delivered a technically sound game that had middling reception. Can it really be argued that the existence of QB benefited MS' positioning in anyway?
Now we have Scalebound, which for all we know could have also been a technical peice of shit, and they CHOSE NOT TO release it, and still are taking a massive blow to credibility.
So we have three similar scenarios, each handled in different ways, and they all resulted in negative results for MS. Sure the delaying QB and releasing it probably FEELS best to the few consumers that bought it and enjoyed it (like me). But from a business standpoint, it likely wasn't worth it.
So I just can't get with the idea that anyone on the outside can say what's THE correct way to handle a title that isn't shaping up well.