I mean in the sense that they were in a position in which they could be flexible with their priorities. Many software shops are dependent on market-related cycles which they tend to have little control over. This in turn imposes business-focused individuals to pay strict attention to feedback being received by users. If the business side of the work environment is stressed due to issues discovered in a software release, this stress naturally finds its way to the programmers who wrote the software.

In the case of the company I had worked (read: interned) previously, they were in a position in which their control over their target market was well secured. Think, say, Valve versus EA; EA makes a lot of money off of its games, but they're still average players in the video games market in the sense that they have an average track record of the quality of the software they release. The controversy behind their corporate practices both externally as well internally hasn't helped their position in the market. So, it's unsurprising when developers at EA find themselves in need to just hack away within an arbitrary codebase.

Valve, on the other hand, is in a different position on nearly every level. They have a strong foothold over their primary market in D2D/Cloud-stored games, which offers them a high degree of flexibility. They also have a good reputation with the innovativeness and high quality of standard with which they attribute to a) their business practices, b) their cultural views and ecosystem, and c) the games they've released.

No business is without some level of controversy, but in Valve's case theirs is extremely minimal and doesn't affect what they produce in a negative manner.

In the end, it comes down to priority. Anyway, hope this helps.