I'll go ahead and cite a game publisher: Paradox Interactive.
They have had a history of wonderful games for their niche, but very many of their games are released buggy, incomplete, or otherwise unpolished.
If you asked me if the choice was that or nothing, I'd choose the incomplete game.
However, their latest in house release, Crusader Kings II, is less in depth then their other games, but after week 1 or so was pretty much bug free and ready to go.
If you ask me whether the initial unpolished game or CK2 was better, I'd say CK2 is better. It has better reviews and delivers in what it promises, and its sales reflect the great game. Further updates have more fully expanded the game, but the base game runs fine on its own.
If you follow the other extreme of "getting out the game if funds run out" you get in Paradox's case Sword of the Stars 2, a game that has tarnished the publisher to this day in derision. Despite being released years ago, it still has harmed the company when it releases a game where consumers think "Is this market ready?"
Even today, Hearts of Iron 3, one of Paradox's more popular games, gets the infamy of "expansions are paid patches" for the base game did not get the attention it needed before release.