Major companies who have pissed you off to the point of no return.

[CardinalPiggles]

Mcdonalds for me too. Their food is just absolutely shit quality. If I someday have children I'll do my best to make sure they don't ever eat there either.

That's pretty much it for me, I'm willing to forgive a lot. But McD's is just plain terrible, I'd much rather go to a cafe or a Subways.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Is that statement by Ubisoft so bad? I only mean that for me if a game is really good I've never gone and thought to myself 'yeah that was great but I never want to experience that universe/characters/gameplay again'. I figured the fact they want to make games that can be expanded into more good games is really a good thing. Plus I kinda like the fact they are talking about new IPs in this meaning that unlike certain other companies they are still trying to make new franchises, new ideas it's just they (quite rightly) don't want to make one offs that can't build on themselves. I'd be annoyed if Assassins Creed, Splinter Cell, Prince of Persia stopped at number one, I'd of missed out on some of my favorite all time games in Assassins Creed 2, Chaos Theory and Sands of time.

I don't mean this in a confrontational way at all, I just generally am interested in your opinion and would like you to elaborate if you would be so kind?

Yeah sure no problem.
The way I take that statement is that it's requiring up-and-coming developers to turn their works into monetization machines. Also it reveals a huge problem with the publisher mindset, that publishers are basically ignoring what customers want and will just rely on people who buy anything.

In my mind, there should be two reasons a sequel should be made.

1. The game is popular, people ask for it. The publishers want to respond to that demand.
2. The developers want to make it. The publishers see it as reasonable and give them the budget.

I understand that games have to make money, that's the way the world works. But when you flat out say "we won't support your project unless we can squeeze money out of it and turn it into a franchise" you have successfully alienated people who want to do things for the art of doing them. If a developer wants to make a simple story and nice game, Ubisoft is now out of the question.

Basically, I feel publishers should not CONTROL the direction of videogame development. They can choose it, they can influence it, but anything further than that and they become like the corrupt Record Labels.

TLDR

Sequels are fine, requiring sequels is very questionable.
Requiring sequels before the first game has been released is just plain illogical and downright counterproductive to the development of videogames.

 

[Amaror]

What is that hate against the razer ceo for his statement?
I really don't get it.
He said he doesn't want his company to make stuff that he, as the lead designer, doesn't care about, because when the lead designer doesn't care about his work then the quality of the product suffers.
He should be celebrated for the notion that he is one of the businessman, that wants to make stuff, because it's good, not because he can make another million bucks.
But no everyone gets mad, because everyone's in love with sony right now and how dare anyone say anything that can be interpreted as an insult against them. (He even said that he doesn't think that the ps3 is bad)

We complain on and on about all the businessman and ceos that just make crappy product so they can make another million or two and then a ceo comes along and says he doesn't want to make crappy products to make another million or two and everybody gets mad.
Seriously don't you see how stupid that is?

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

To be honest I don't think there are many companies I avoid, if a company makes a product or provides a service that I think looks good I'm not going to avoid it for past slights. Obviously if i got bad service from an airline company I might, but so far I haven't really. The only thing that comes to mind is that I avoid giving money to Victory Records at all costs for screwing around with Streetlight Manifesto, but they're not really a hard thing to avoid.

Natwest - Not as bad as the above, but they weren't a great bank to begin with. When they made the bizarre business decision to only allow their customers to use official designated Natwest ATMs (The nearest of which is about a 15 minute drive away) it became too much of a hassle to stay with them.

Uhh.. Pardon? I'm with Natwest, I don't have to do that. In fact I quite like them, they've been pretty hassle-free for me.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

What is that hate against the razer ceo for his statement?
I really don't get it.
He said he doesn't want his company to make stuff that he, as the lead designer, doesn't care about, because when the lead designer doesn't care about his work then the quality of the product suffers.
He should be celebrated for the notion that he is one of the businessman, that wants to make stuff, because it's good, not because he can make another million bucks.
But no everyone gets mad, because everyone's in love with sony right now and how dare anyone say anything that can be interpreted as an insult against them. (He even said that he doesn't think that the ps3 is bad)

We complain on and on about all the businessman and ceos that just make crappy product so they can make another million or two and then a ceo comes along and says he doesn't want to make crappy products to make another million or two and everybody gets mad.
Seriously don't you see how stupid that is?

Ignoring the blatant fallacies.

This is what he said:

"One of the big reasons why we don't make Playstation accessories is because I don't really spend time with mine."

There is a difference between a guy saying

"I'm not gonna make things for this product cause I don't see the investment in it."
and
"I'm not gonna make things for this product because I don't use it."

One is business decision, the other is decision based on close-mindedness and failure to know what your customer wants.

Remember when the Xbox One designer effectively said "I don't see a problem with always-online, so why should you?"

The Titanfall devs said they weren't working on singleplayer development because people completed the singleplayer campaigns too fast. As controversial as that decision was to some people, it was made on evidence, not on some guy saying "I don't play singleplayer, so we're not working on singleplayer games."

Products are based on consumers needs and wants, not what a CEO needs and wants.

 

[Cabisco]

Is that statement by Ubisoft so bad? I only mean that for me if a game is really good I've never gone and thought to myself 'yeah that was great but I never want to experience that universe/characters/gameplay again'. I figured the fact they want to make games that can be expanded into more good games is really a good thing. Plus I kinda like the fact they are talking about new IPs in this meaning that unlike certain other companies they are still trying to make new franchises, new ideas it's just they (quite rightly) don't want to make one offs that can't build on themselves. I'd be annoyed if Assassins Creed, Splinter Cell, Prince of Persia stopped at number one, I'd of missed out on some of my favorite all time games in Assassins Creed 2, Chaos Theory and Sands of time.

I don't mean this in a confrontational way at all, I just generally am interested in your opinion and would like you to elaborate if you would be so kind?

Yeah sure no problem.
The way I take that statement is that it's requiring up-and-coming developers to turn their works into monetization machines. Also it reveals a huge problem with the publisher mindset, that publishers are basically ignoring what customers want and will just rely on people who buy anything.

In my mind, there should be two reasons a sequel should be made.

1. The game is popular, people ask for it. The publishers want to respond to that demand.
2. The developers want to make it. The publishers see it as reasonable and give them the budget.

I understand that games have to make money, that's the way the world works. But when you flat out say "we won't support your project unless we can squeeze money out of it and turn it into a franchise" you have successfully alienated people who want to do things for the art of doing them. If a developer wants to make a simple story and nice game, Ubisoft is now out of the question.

Basically, I feel publishers should not CONTROL the direction of videogame development. They can choose it, they can influence it, but anything further than that and they become like the corrupt Record Labels.

TLDR

Sequels are fine, requiring sequels is very questionable.
Requiring sequels before the first game has been released is just plain illogical and downright counterproductive to the development of videogames.

Ahh I see, it's a good point even if I disagree with it. I don't even really disagree with it persay I think it's a perfectly good analysis I just don't think what the Ubisoft Ceo said was bad either, I can see where there coming from just as easily.

 

[Avalanche91]

Say remember that one friend who insists on keeping his phone on during the movies while....

oh screw it; punchline is EA.

 

[votemarvel]

Ubisoft.

Branding most PC gamers as thieves was downright foul. I've not bought a single thing of theirs after that day.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Ahh I see, it's a good point even if I disagree with it. I don't even really disagree with it persay I think it's a perfectly good analysis I just don't think what the Ubisoft Ceo said was bad either, I can see where there coming from just as easily.

Yes, you can see where they're coming from, but I'd question why or how you don't see it as completely illogical.

The old saying goes "don't put all your eggs in one basket"

Additionally "don't throw away the eggs that won't fit in your basket, they're still good eggs"

 

[rodneyy]

go-compare and 118 118,

i have 0 dealing with either company in the past but they have both made the most annoying adverts i have had the displeasure of watching over and over and over again in what seemed like every add break they could lever themselfs into.

it might seem petty but dear god those adverts are the most annoying thing i have ever come accross.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Gamestop. I worked for them for a short while and was so disillusioned it hurt...I wouldn't have minded working under commission-style circumstances (ie: pay based on sales) but the way gamestop does it you (the employee) are expected to make sales quotas without the benefit of a commission. Being paid with a cirrus card was a right-ass too...I basically had to pay if I wanted to do things like take money off of the card, check my balance on the card, etc.

I've bought from gamestop once since working there, for Xenoblade Chronicles (because US and it was my only option for a copy for under $100)

Pro Tip: If you've just been hired by a company who gives you a card and puts money on it instead of handing you a physical check then leave that company ASAP.

---

One day I will no longer be poor and on that day I will never have to eat at McDonalds ever again (except while travelling the world and eating at foreign ones because of the novelty)

 

[Axzarious]

It's too much effort on my part to actually hate something. Ironically, the more you hate something, the more important it is to you, and the more it means to you.

That said, there are two companies already mentioned that I like to mock and poke fun at to a degree more frequent than anything else. Those would be EA and Apple.

 

[Stasisesque]

Natwest - Not as bad as the above, but they weren't a great bank to begin with. When they made the bizarre business decision to only allow their customers to use official designated Natwest ATMs (The nearest of which is about a 15 minute drive away) it became too much of a hassle to stay with them.

Uhh.. Pardon? I'm with Natwest, I don't have to do that. In fact I quite like them, they've been pretty hassle-free for me.

I believe it only affects basic account holders. Those are the accounts you do not have an overdraft facility on.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Natwest - Not as bad as the above, but they weren't a great bank to begin with. When they made the bizarre business decision to only allow their customers to use official designated Natwest ATMs (The nearest of which is about a 15 minute drive away) it became too much of a hassle to stay with them.

Uhh.. Pardon? I'm with Natwest, I don't have to do that. In fact I quite like them, they've been pretty hassle-free for me.

I believe it only affects basic account holders. Those are the accounts you do not have an overdraft facility on.

Ah well, that explains things. I can imagine it being insanely irritating, it's bad enough finding an ATM that doesn't charge you.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Apple.

As my friend put it: "You spend $900 for the laptop, and then $1000 for the logo on the back"

 

[Dangit2019]

Microsoft. Yes, even after they did the famous 180.

Mostly because this:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/124268-Microsoft-Exec-If-Youre-Backwards-Compatible-Youre-Really-Backwards

and this:


Yes, he doesn't work there anymore, but the fact that they had so much condescension and disrespect for the customers was enough to make me lean toward Sony.

That they would even try that shit is insulting.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Dish Network
ATT&T
Apple
I completely boycott anything they make/ provide after horrid customer service issues. Had to file harassment on Dish Network because they kept trying to pay me to come back. There isn't enough money to pay me to come back. There are plenty of big companies that actually understand what customer service means, none of these are one of them.

 

[Amaror]

Ignoring the blatant fallacies.

This is what he said:

"One of the big reasons why we don't make Playstation accessories is because I don't really spend time with mine."

Yeah and if you had read his twitter he also said:

Why's it selfish? I design stuff I actually want as a gamer rather than sell stuff to gamers for money.

and

You're assuming it's just a business for us If it were, we'd be a much larger company than who we are today.

So, Yeah, it sucks that they don't support an entire system, because he doesn't play on it very much, but it mostly shows that this guy and his company are making their stuff, because they like it not because they want to make large amounts of money.
He designs the peripherals, because when he plays his games he thinks about what kind of peripheral would improve his enjoyment right now and that's why he designs them.
So that's pretty much the reason why he doesn't support PS 3. He doesn't play much on it, so he doesn't get ideas what kind of peripheral would make the ps 3 gaming experience more enjoyable for him.
Of course they could just take their Xbox 360 stuff, rename the buttons and change the software and connection and sell it as a ps 3 controller, but they don't do that because they are not just out to make money.

I personally really like that kind of business, we have so few businesses in the gaming industry that actually care about gaming, let's not drive away the few we have.
[/quote]

 

[Something Amyss]

Amazon - Boldfaced market manipulation, printed in Arial 12pt, and sold as an e-book for %400 cost price.

Speaking of Amazon and ebooks, ANY company that's been involved in the ebook price manipulation.

 

[Something Amyss]

Microsoft. Yes, even after they did the famous 180.

They should really have muzzled Mattrick. I mean, he wasn't the only one saying stupid things, but if something stupid was said, there was a much higher chance he was saying it.

I mean, it's like those "most interesting man in the world" ads for Dos Equis. Except "I don't always say stupid things. But when I do, they're usually breathtaking."