my soapbox is about QUALITY over QUANTITY.
I'm not really sure what your point is:
Are you suggesting that there should be some process in place to stop the 'low quality' titles being released, or is it a more general point that it would be better if the overall level of quality was higher?
If it's the latter then I'm sure everyone would agree that it would be better if games were better, but it's a bit of a redundant thing to say, unless you're just having a moan.
If it's the former, then I'd disagree, because I don't think that it's either practical or desirable: Are you thinking that as well as the existing certification and QC processes (is it broken? will it make people sick?), there should be some subjective quality check ("sorry, but this committee has judged this game to be a 3/10 and therefore unfit to release")?
If such a process existed it would be a piece of bureaucracy effectively green-lighting projects that it felt met its quality standards, and rejecting everything else. That doesn't sound like a great idea to me.
I've played some shitty games and seen some shitty movies; that's just life. I feel there's enough commercial and regulatory involvement in the creative process as it is, without needing some new quality police in there preventing things getting made that I might not like.