Probably a nuanced point in what's the purpose for espousing the virtues of performance if you don't have the output to show it is worth it?

If you want advice about making games would you rather learn from the person that routinely ships games or a person that shipped a game once 10 years ago?

Is that a trade off worth chasing? "Potential perfection" with nothing to show for it?

Some people actually have mouths to feed. Some people don't have the luxury of preaching for whatever ideals they have without a need to release anything in 10 years; that doesn't make their products "garbage".

Fact of the matter is that code quality is a pretty small part of whether a game is good or not. It can be notable when it's good and it can sink a game when it's really bad, but there's a huge gap in the middle where it doesn't really matter that much (especially to the player).

If you have bills to pay, it really is.