Poll: What is the worst game company out there?
- Thread starter Matthew Jabour
- Start date
Recommended Videos
People are legitimately saying Valve is the WORST game company? I understand that Valve/Steam may do something that you don't like, but saying that it's the worst compared to many other companies is ridiculous...
As for me, I gotta go with Zynga. Partly because I hate facebook games and the plethora of notifications I get to join them, but also because their business practices are so shady.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to bash my head against a wall repeatedly after reading the Valve hate arguments.
As for me, I gotta go with Zynga. Partly because I hate facebook games and the plethora of notifications I get to join them, but also because their business practices are so shady.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to bash my head against a wall repeatedly after reading the Valve hate arguments.
Hate? None of them. However I definitely dislike EA for what they have done to BioWare, once one of my favourite game companies, now a mere shell of it's former self with almost all of the original team jumped ship.
Recently Square have been bumbling about with mistake after mistake, so I think they are one to watch... if the relaunch of FFXIV fails, they are really boned.
Ubisoft tick me off too, mostly thanks to the Heroes of Might and Magic games. First of all, they completely discontinued all other games related to the M&M brand, including the awesomely fun RPGs. Then, they changed the whole style and format of the Heroes games, meaning that my favourite is STILL 3. Which was the late 3DO's last offering and before Ubisoft got their talons stuck in.
But yeah, hate is too strong a term. They make games, some of those games I play, some I don't. They have bad business practices, yeah so do all companies these days... overall though, I do think the fall of EA would be good for gaming.
Recently Square have been bumbling about with mistake after mistake, so I think they are one to watch... if the relaunch of FFXIV fails, they are really boned.
Ubisoft tick me off too, mostly thanks to the Heroes of Might and Magic games. First of all, they completely discontinued all other games related to the M&M brand, including the awesomely fun RPGs. Then, they changed the whole style and format of the Heroes games, meaning that my favourite is STILL 3. Which was the late 3DO's last offering and before Ubisoft got their talons stuck in.
But yeah, hate is too strong a term. They make games, some of those games I play, some I don't. They have bad business practices, yeah so do all companies these days... overall though, I do think the fall of EA would be good for gaming.
I can't really pin it down, but I chose Activision simply because I really hate Bobby Kotick. I can't help but shake the feeling that the stuff that annoys the heck out of me are results of his executive meddling.
I dunno why, but I can't seem to agree with EA. I know they're not exactly the shining example of what game publishers should be, but I just don't hate them I guess? I dunno, I think the only EA games I do play are made by BioWare. Then again if Dragon Age 3 comes out with multiplayer and a shitty single player I'd probably vote EA as the worst.
On a side note the companies I do like are Valve and Bethesda.
I agree, the first game I have ever had to play with a constant internet connection thing was Ass Creed II, the addition of this component for a single player experience is monumentally stupid. Nevertheless, Activision beats em by a slight margin IMO.Rawne1980 said:
I dunno why, but I can't seem to agree with EA. I know they're not exactly the shining example of what game publishers should be, but I just don't hate them I guess? I dunno, I think the only EA games I do play are made by BioWare. Then again if Dragon Age 3 comes out with multiplayer and a shitty single player I'd probably vote EA as the worst.
On a side note the companies I do like are Valve and Bethesda.
Capcom considering those assholes tried and put a hold on my youtube account for posting a Let's Play of Asura's Wrath. Also the fact that they are killing off damn near every one of their franchises.Matthew Jabour said:
So there's that. CAPCOM's slowly morphing into EA atm where integrity and fans go to die.
I know it's a pain in the arse...though I cannot figure out why Steam is ignoring that option for you.Freezy_Breezy said:
It works just fine for all of my games (that I use it for anyway).
I can understand their irritation, but at the same time I can also understand why Valve went the way they did.
I'd get burnt out creating content for what is essentially the same game 5-6 years straight.
Just as well. From the amount of whining you're doing I wouldn't want you as a customer and would be glad to see you leave were I in Valve's shoes.Akalabeth said:
Who said they failed to make the game? How do you know that they didn't decide to put it on hold in favour of making a much improved Half-Life 3 farther down the road instead of rehashing HL2 for the third time? The thing is, you don't. All you know is that they didn't make an expansion pack (which is essentially what the episodes were, not full blown games) in the time frame you wanted so you throw a hissy fit if anyone speaks the name Valve. Sorry your expectations weren't met, but that's little excuse for the sorts of half-assed criticism's steeped in boiling rage that you've thrown out there. Don't like Valve? Don't buy their games. Don't like Steam? Don't use it. No on forced you to install Steam to play anything. It was stated before HL2 was even launched that it would require Steam to be activated. If you bought it and somehow didn't know then the only lesson there is to do your research next time so no one else has to listen to you complain about how you made an uninformed purchase.
And so long as we're on the topic of Episode 3: the gap between Half-Life and Half-Life 2 was longer than the time between Episode 2 and today. But people didn't throw a fit when Valve spent a good six years making their second full game. Honestly, the bitching about Episode 3 not being out already is more annoying than Episode 3 not being out. I'm not sure why people see fit to keep spewing the same tired bullshit for everyone else when most of us simply don't care anymore. Valve has made some great games since Episode 2, and most of the rest of us have moved on already. You should try it. It's much less stressful.
Valve isn't in the film industry. Hell, Valve isn't even in the same situation as most game developers where they're beholden to a publisher to provide them money and development support to get their games out. They are completely and totally financially independent and can afford to make what they want, when they want, and their customers let them do it because their games are frequently excellent, and they regularly provide free content updates for years after release. They don't have deadlines except for what they set for themselves. To make a film industry comparison so you might get the point a bit more easily, these guys are like Spielberg or James Cameron. They can do what they want, when they want, on their own schedule, because they can afford to work that way and have built up more than enough credibility to pick and choose what they want to do and spend seven years doing it if they want. And hell, even that may not be a valid comparison because I don't know for sure if those two movie makers are financially independent enough to entirely self fund a film production the way Valve can fund any game they will ever want to make.
Point is, when you're richer than God and swimming in a pool filled with cash, nobody can tell you when to release something. You release games you're satisfied with when they're done. That Valve has that attitude and still releases a game a year is, probably more than anything, a testament to how much they enjoy making games and how good they are at it. No other company with a "we'll release it when it's done" attitude is that prolific. None of them. In fact, most of the yearly releases you name are only on a yearly schedule because 2+ development teams alternate working on them, and the publisher is happy to cut corners and sacrifice quality (see every major bug and game imbalance in COD's since COD4) to get them out the door on time.
Actually, in my opinion, the fact that EA makes good games is part of what makes me despise them so much (hear me out). There's not a single Zynga game (or recent Activision game) that I've been all that interested in playing, so I just don't buy them and happily go on my way. However, EA gets its hate mostly from imposing questionable business practices on games most people want to play. EA released games like Arkham Asylum. I love most of their games, but I feel that buying them greenlights their business practices.tippy2k2 said:*Sigh...should I stop warning you that putting just a sentence and giving nothing in your OP is a warnable offense? You already got a love-tap by the ban-hammer for this very issue Mr. Jabour!
Agreed, /end threadaguspal said:
Seriously, the worst game company in the world will be a company that no one has ever heard of because they just spit out crap after crap (like, literally releasing broken games). Every game company that has been mentioned so far has stuff that I (and millions of other gamers) have loved. I suppose everyone is entitled to their opinion but it's absolutely silly to call these multi-million dollar companies bad at what they do. I suppose once some of these companies crash themselves so badly that they can't recover, THEN they can be called the worst
Although the guy above makes a good case for Zynga...
Here:
Who made this game? If you MUST have a worse company ever, make it the people who made this game.
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/10/what-went-wrong-with-silicon-knights-x-men-destiny/Tony said:Bullshit.Supertegwyn said:
The only bad game they made was Too Human and X-Men Destiny. And if there CEO was crazy then why is he in the Canadian Gaming Hall of Fame?
After reading that, I kind of don't like Silicon Knights.
I'll say it like Bob Dylan and not just mention company's, but instead those invisible people. Any of those assholes who push DRM like it's a good idea, bastards who stifle creativity and the pigs who eat up all the money. I want to know these corrupt pieces of shit so I we can name and shame them.
Bethesda is quickly falling down my list for their lack of communication with the PS3 players of Skyrim. If they're not going to release the first two DLC's that everyone else has had for half a year they should just tell us. Not sure if i'm gonna get Dragonborn when it comes out.
I'd say EA snatches it for one colossal 'f you' to gaming. This year when they released FIFA 13 for the Wii, they literally changed NOTHING but the kits and teams from fifa 12. Actually changed nothing. It was NOT the FIFA 13 the other systems got, it was literally a rebranded FIFA 12 that they charged full price for. I dont own a wii but I got a bit upset by that
Actually, you started that comparison when you felt compelled to use Call of Duty as an example of a release schedule compared to Half-Life and Halo.Akalabeth said:
So deflection of the topic, first, and now deflection of blame. Well done.
That much is painfully clear. You don't care about the truth or facts, even when someone backs them up with quantifiable evidence. You're content with just arbitrarily making shit up and spewing forth nonsense and rhetoric. And, should someone else say some bit of nonsense that coincides with yours, you'll repeat it as gospel.
Seems the standard modus operandi for "haters" on this forum.
I bet you're one of those people that constantly shout, "Metacritic scores are meaningless!" until they can help you punctuate your claims in a forum post.
And this part? - "Half Life 2 Episode 3 - DOESN'T EXIST"
Cute.
There has been plenty of articles on this very topic, even here on the Escapist, that explains why the price point was set as it was. If you're unwilling to take the time to look them up, then too bad. I'm not going to waste my time doing it as I know, for a fact, that you'll just do what you've been doing this entire time. You'll ignore them, or accuse me of lying, or say that those explanations are "meaningless". All of which will be followed by more rhetoric and bile.
I take it you STILL haven't bothered to read the article, have you? Of course not. That might lead to you actually seeing the truth. God forbid we talk about that, right?
Good lord, you really do love to state your opinions as facts, don't you? Just....fuck the truth, the only things that matters is your opinion.
By the way, that "third complete game is Episode 1. Regardless of whether you like the game or not, it's a complete game.
Better question, do you?
And, if you're of the impression that "episodic" can not equate a "full game", then you're ENTIRE comparison to Sam & Max and The Walking Dead becomes ridiculously hypocritical.
Because very few companies utilize an episodic model anymore. Valve being one of them. They said, not long after Episode 2 came out, that they were done with the episodic release model and moving towards a "games as a service" model.
(though it's likely pointless, I'm going to put a link here so you can read it for yourself, even though I'm sure you won't bother reading it)
http://www.develop-online.net/news/37625/Newell-Weve-moved-beyond-the-episodic-model
Then how can you justify bitching about requiring Steam for some games? Again, you speak with quite a bit of hypocrisy.
And yet, I'd rather buy a game in a store that requires me to connect to the 'net to download the last bits of data that didn't fit on the disc, then buy a game disc that has content printed on it that's locked away until I pay extra.
Yep. The ONLY one. The ONLY company that does that. Yep....
http://store.origin.com/
http://www.impulsedriven.com/
The ONLY one.
You buy an Xbox game, you have to play it on your Xbox. You buy a Steam game, you have to run it through Steam.
Again, how is that different? You constantly ***** about the Store Front, but that Store Front is no different than the Dashboard for the Xbox.
And sure, you can play offline with your Xbox and avoid all that extra stuff. But...gasp!...oh shock of shocks, you can do the exact same thing with Steam.
So yes. You're are, unsurprisingly, being hypocritical.
Actually, I've owned a 360 since 2006. I've used Xbox Live since it's inception on the original Xbox.
Sure, if you're aim is to play the game that's in the disc drive. But what of any downloaded games? Sure, the quick launch is the next button down, but it only shows a very limited number of titles. To get to your games library, you have to scroll through a fair bit of superfluous junk on the dashboard.
You mean, just like if I double click my game icon it will auto-launch Steam and then auto-launch the game, in a matter of seconds?
In case you missed them previously, here they are again:
http://store.origin.com/
http://www.impulsedriven.com/
Besides, as I've said a number of times, when you buy an Xbox game, you're required to get an Xbox to play it with. The exact same setup with buying a Steam game.
Xbox Live is an operating system?
What?
I...think you need to look up the definition of operating system.
Invasive DRM? You mean the very definition of Xbox Live?
My God, you really, really love being hypocritical, don't you?
There's ads on Steam - "Screw Valve, they're evil and intrusive!"
There's ads on the Xbox - "I ignore them. They're okay with me."
Seriously, what the hell? Are you messing me or are you that biased?
Plus, you completely dismissed everything I said. You can easily and quickly turn off those pop up alerts in Steam. You can't turn off all the annoying, intrusive adverts on the Xbox.
You saying you're okay with the Xbox setup and now the Steam setup speaks volumes about your clear bias.
Oh the irony! You accuse me of "never touching an Xbox", yet you openly pass judgement on Steam while admitting you haven't "touched" it in quite some time.
On by default, but capable of being toggled off. On by default =/= non-optional. Again, can't say the same thing for the Xbox. No choice there, "guy".
And every time you play a game? Have you actually ever used Steam? Those alerts don't pop up when you load a game. Ever. They only show up, assuming they're turned on, when you open Steam or (sometimes) when you close a game.
You need to help me here, as I just can't wrap my head around your line of thinking.
Because someone has to "waste time" to turn off the ads, the ability to disable the ads isn't optional?
What the actual fuck? I don't....how does...?
What?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I've never heard someone complain so much about things so inconsequential, and I've worked in customer service in the past.
Regardless, it's quite clear you have no intention on speaking rationally on the matter and will simply ignore any fact I present in the most dismissive and isulting manner you can conjure.
I've little time and little patience for such behavior. Good day to you.
And yet, you take time out of your clearly important day to complain about it endlessly on the internet.Akalabeth said:
Yep. They sure did "lose you".
Because not releasing the game in the time frame Mr. Akalabeth has set out for you means you've "failed" as a developer.
Seems legit.
And when rampant haters say
"Oh, Valve is evil because they make games people genuinely love and created a service that delivers gaming experiences to millions of gamers around the world"
They just seem silly.
Right, because there's never been a film that's had it's deadline delayed or moved up, for one reason or another.
But you're right. Valve is "clearly" worthless. It's not like they're one of the most influential developers in the industry and have been valued at more than four billion dollars.
And they certainly won't last. Not with their design philosophy. I mean, it's not like they've been utilizing that same philosophy since 1996. Surely not, right?