I feel like Jim really missed the mark in this video.
Unity allows garbage to be made with their engine because making garbage is how you
learn. And if you get someone to learn on your platform, they might become a professional on your platform later (see Microsoft Office, Adobe).
Why are we getting mad at Unity for letting students and aspiring developers show some pride in their projects? Sure, they might be awful games, but it just seems like seriously misplaced anger to get mad at the engine or the developer for providing a creative outlet and professional toolset to those with a hint of aspiration.
Steam is the digital video game distributor. Steam should
solely share the blame for allowing garbage to be sold and distributed on their marketplace.
Sony and Microsoft both have fairly rigorous QA and certification processes that prevent the same garbage from reaching their marketplaces, and while they're not perfect, they're way better than Steam.
I also don't think he responded to Adrian Forest's point, which is that there's obviously some sort of consumer misinformation about what a "game engine" is and what it does. If consumers are rejecting a game based on its engine, then they probably don't have a great grasp of the role of the engine in the development process.