Start-up founders are hardly insane. From my perspective, it's the intersection between video games and start-ups that is the problem.
The things that make video games good (good writing, good graphics, good sound effects, good gameplay, etc.) are easier to accomplish when you have a decent amount of staff and enough money to throw at the problem. The video game market is horrendously saturated, with a large segment of the population not even finishing games once. (I don't have any hard statistics for this, but it's a trope that is well-attested on r/gaming and the game blogosphere, e.g. "You Gonna Finish That?").
To make matters worse, the market is also infamously critical of everything -- fail in one category, and you basically get panned. For example, Mass Effect 3 is getting a lot of flack for having a "bad" ending, despite being otherwise a well-polished game with a budget the size of Missouri.
One could subvert some of this by developing for phones, but the iOS market has notoriously finicky gatekeepers. Android, perhaps -- I don't know much about them.
I don't see why Alexei should be concerned about most of your points, because they're based off of several unexamined conditions.
Not finishing the game only matters if he plans to implement DLC or microtransactions, the customer has already paid for the game, why should the seller worry then? Of course, the main point is that if the customer hasn't finished the games he has, why should he pay for more games? While this seems like a reasonable assumption, I don't quite think it's quite clear cut. Anecdotally, I've seen people with 50+ game backlogs continu...