Poll: Worst publisher based on Principles.

[Terramax]

Fuck! My distaste for EA made me auto-click them! I meant to vote LucasArts! Those guys are even bigger jerks!

Explain.
Trust me, I've got massive distaste for them after what they did to Battlefront III, but why Lucasarts over EA?

You answered your own question. It's one thing to fuck your customers and cannibalize developers. It's another to completely destroy/troll a developer you own and let them sit around in limbo before throwing all their jobs out the window. I just find LucasArts to be more maliciously evil than EA. Most of EA's problems come down to stupidity imo.

This, and that they went from making great games like Monkey Island to Grim Fandango, to 'Oh No! Not Yet Another Star Wars Game'

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Valve is not the perfect developer people like to think they are.

No dev studio is. But this isn't a competition to determine who's perfect, it's to determine who has the principles that are worst for the industry.

Half Life was good, but honestly the series is close to being forgotten. It's quickly being left behind and the release for HL3 is way past due. Past due to the point where if they were to announce it tomorrow, 0 fucks would be given from me.

Hated TF2. the only redeeming thing about that game was the "Meet the X" videos. Entertaining, but not enough to make me wanna play that game.

Portal was cool. Really short though.

And their other games such as DoD, CS, and L4D are pretty much just mods of half life with a gimmick or 2 added. They're fun sure, but let's not pretend they're some revolutionary games.

I played Counter-Strike GO on release, and was greeted by not only an ungodly lag that reminded me of my 56k days, but a familiar gimmicky playstyle that I had long since abandoned to (imo) superior FPS gameplay delivered by BF3 or even CoD.

Those are games, not principles. Reread the OP. This is a discussion about industry practices; not about what game was the kewlest.

Also: Micro transactions ahoy!

What's wrong with microtransactions that makes them such a bad company? If you want to buy a hat then buy a hat. If you don't care then don't care. From what I understand, they effect the gameplay 0% and only change pixels around. And if that's really your beef, then that's ridiculous. A videogame company does not owe you free hats. And they shouldn't stop making something that other people want, just because you personally don't.

Recently the whole "holding your game library hostage to agree to new ToS" thing does not set a good precedent. EA did it before it was cool, people raged, Valve saw this, and did it anyway. This does not sound like a developer that listens to the consumers and has their interests in mind.

This isn't new at all. You don't own the game even if you have a physical copy. Unless its from like the 80s or very early 90s, most TOSes say that while you own the physical disc, you do not actually own the game but are merely leasing it from the company for a one time payment. This is mainly to protect them legally from your tinkering with and reverse engineering code. But it also means that you are required to agree to any TOS published by the studio, including updated ones viewable from patches, or forfeit your right to use their software. So congrats on your startling attack on every videogame studio for the past 20 years?

An overall lack of innovation, they've made nothing but FPS's and refuse to alter the formula in any way.

And why should they? There are very few original concepts for games, and most of them are garbage. I wouldn't say portal was innovative in that it brought up new ideas, but I would say it was innovative in the 'MacIntosh-Apple' definition of the word. In that it stole someone else's idea and executed it well enough to bring it to the mainstream. There really weren't any big name modern puzzle games until the original portal. Except perhaps penumbra, but that's iffy. I don't think I've ever seen a game like l4d before it came out. I'd say the setup and the execution are very unique both for campaign mode and versus.

The fans. That alone earns them a vote from me just out of spite.

Oh good, because I'm pretty sure the name of this thread is what is the worst publisher based on your childish whims.

Who seriously pledges loyalty to one developer?

I don't know, who does? I certainly haven't ever heard anyone say 'Valve is Lord' and we must all play their games and only their games. I've only heard people defend their legitimate and successful business practices that have thus far favored both developer and customer. That's hardly a profession of loyalty; only an admission that they have policies that people like.

 

[Smithburg]

Nintendo because I HATE their fucking fans! I want to stab them in the eye, whenever they talk about the "golden age of gaming" (It was NOT GOLDEN AGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and always complain about modern gaming all the fucking time! RAGGGHTHTH!#W /RANT over

Anyway, I choose also Ubisoft for what they did to Splinter Cell. Fuck you Ubisoft. Just fuck you.

It's considered the golden age of gaming because of the influence it had and so on

I have never heard anyone except Nintendo fanboys call it the golden age of gaming. Should the Pong era be called the Golden age of gaming then? You know what? I HATE the terms Golden age "insert music/fim whatever" because it is a sense of smugness around them.

Edit. Callin it influence is one thing, but to call it a Golden age is full of shit. Games was as today: sometimes good, sometimes bad. Mostly in between.

Golden age doesn't mean that the games are better, its talking about influence on gaming, the golden age as I've heard it described was when gaming started (so yes when pong was made) to around when the SNES cam out. I think after that it's considered silver age, and now is modern age, so it's kinda of how comics set up. But this is how I've heard it explained, never really cared much for labels like that

 

[Smithburg]

I voted EA because...duh.

Now I'm just scrolling thought the comments laughing at the valve fanboys raging that valve's votes aren't at 0%.
Valve isn't evil like Activision or EA, but it's hardly the messiah.

That's the point though, they aren't perfect, but they aren't as bad as some of the other choices, it's a vote for the worst, so it's weird seeing valve being voted for compared to EA Activision and Ubisoft with all the hate they get

 

[Smithburg]

Valve has 11 people voting them the worst... wat?

Maybe cos people are dumb in believing there will be a half life 3. Their wont. Valve started episodic gaming yet cancelled HF Ep3 cos they couldn't be bothered. I dont get why people have this jesus complex with valve, they do fuck all. Yet people worship them.

Well, they just made Counter-Strike Global Offensive a few weeks ago, That seems to be making a game right there, They made Portal 2, they made Dota 2, they made Left 4 Dead 2, and they've been making more than most developers do with that timetable, they also run a hugely successful distribution program. You don't seem to know what you're talking about when you say they don't do anything.

 

[Puzzlenaut]

I would have voted Nintendo, just to express my distaste at their entire game creating model of dragging up the same 3 IPs for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever.

Why can't they put any effort into something that isn't Mario? WHYYYYYYYYYY?

 

[veloper]

I voted EA because...duh.

Now I'm just scrolling thought the comments laughing at the valve fanboys raging that valve's votes aren't at 0%.
Valve isn't evil like Activision or EA, but it's hardly the messiah.

That's the point though, they aren't perfect, but they aren't as bad as some of the other choices, it's a vote for the worst, so it's weird seeing valve being voted for compared to EA Activision and Ubisoft with all the hate they get

Let me help you out there.
Those few odd results not so weird when you consider that many members here like internet comedy.

EA lost (or won in a negative sense) this contest for many obvious reasons, but for some people that is just too boring.
So they like to spice things up a little in the hopes of seeing a little argument spring up on the forums.

 

[maninahat]

To be honest, I've never really cared about unscrupulous companies and their asshole policies. I don't tend to notice the effects of their decisions beyond the minor inconveniences they cause me, and as far as I understand them, they're just things that spit out games once in a while.

If I'm going to have to pick one though, I'd say Lucas Arts. For milking the Star Wars franchise for all its worth, to the detriment of all the great games it could/should still be making.

Fucking Star Wars is played out. Boring. Needs to die. There I said it.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

Valve is not the perfect developer people like to think they are.

No dev studio is. But this isn't a competition to determine who's perfect, it's to determine who has the principles that are worst for the industry.

Half Life was good, but honestly the series is close to being forgotten. It's quickly being left behind and the release for HL3 is way past due. Past due to the point where if they were to announce it tomorrow, 0 fucks would be given from me.

Hated TF2. the only redeeming thing about that game was the "Meet the X" videos. Entertaining, but not enough to make me wanna play that game.

Portal was cool. Really short though.

And their other games such as DoD, CS, and L4D are pretty much just mods of half life with a gimmick or 2 added. They're fun sure, but let's not pretend they're some revolutionary games.

I played Counter-Strike GO on release, and was greeted by not only an ungodly lag that reminded me of my 56k days, but a familiar gimmicky playstyle that I had long since abandoned to (imo) superior FPS gameplay delivered by BF3 or even CoD.

Those are games, not principles. Reread the OP. This is a discussion about industry practices; not about what game was the kewlest.

Also: Micro transactions ahoy!

What's wrong with microtransactions that makes them such a bad company? If you want to buy a hat then buy a hat. If you don't care then don't care. From what I understand, they effect the gameplay 0% and only change pixels around. And if that's really your beef, then that's ridiculous. A videogame company does not owe you free hats. And they shouldn't stop making something that other people want, just because you personally don't.

Recently the whole "holding your game library hostage to agree to new ToS" thing does not set a good precedent. EA did it before it was cool, people raged, Valve saw this, and did it anyway. This does not sound like a developer that listens to the consumers and has their interests in mind.

This isn't new at all. You don't own the game even if you have a physical copy. Unless its from like the 80s or very early 90s, most TOSes say that while you own the physical disc, you do not actually own the game but are merely leasing it from the company for a one time payment. This is mainly to protect them legally from your tinkering with and reverse engineering code. But it also means that you are required to agree to any TOS published by the studio, including updated ones viewable from patches, or forfeit your right to use their software. So congrats on your startling attack on every videogame studio for the past 20 years?

An overall lack of innovation, they've made nothing but FPS's and refuse to alter the formula in any way.

And why should they? There are very few original concepts for games, and most of them are garbage. I wouldn't say portal was innovative in that it brought up new ideas, but I would say it was innovative in the 'MacIntosh-Apple' definition of the word. In that it stole someone else's idea and executed it well enough to bring it to the mainstream. There really weren't any big name modern puzzle games until the original portal. Except perhaps penumbra, but that's iffy. I don't think I've ever seen a game like l4d before it came out. I'd say the setup and the execution are very unique both for campaign mode and versus.

The fans. That alone earns them a vote from me just out of spite.

Oh good, because I'm pretty sure the name of this thread is what is the worst publisher based on your childish whims.

Who seriously pledges loyalty to one developer?

I don't know, who does? I certainly haven't ever heard anyone say 'Valve is Lord' and we must all play their games and only their games. I've only heard people defend their legitimate and successful business practices that have thus far favored both developer and customer. That's hardly a profession of loyalty; only an admission that they have policies that people like.

Dude are you talking to me because none of those quotes are mine.

 

[Major Chip]

EA, for taking franchises that offer 40-50 hours of gameplay with choices galore, then bullrushing the devs into ruining the ending. I think you all know which game franchise I speak of.

However, I have to also say Lucasarts. We Star Wars gamers have been essentially screaming at Lucasarts to make either (preferably both) Star Wars Battlefront 3 or Kotr3. Instead, we get a four hour long (at best) copy/paste of The Force Unleashed, which was already finished to a satifying extent, and SW-TOR, which effectively took Revan from Kotr and tortured his legacy. In the case of Battlefront 3, Lucasarts have a franchise that people are begging to give them money for. I refuse to believe they haven't noticed this by now, so they're clearly just trolling us all.

 

[Random Argument Man]

-Square Enix plugged its ears with their fingers screaming " LALALALALALALA I'M ONLY MAKING THE GAMES THAT I WANT AND NOT WHAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ASKING LALALLALALALALALAL".

I would defend this by saying they don't have to listen to their customers (plus, Valve does the exact same thing, verbatim) but... I wish Square would abandon Final Fantasy. It's just such shit and it gets in the way of my Kingdom Hearts.

Yeah, but Valve is doing multiple games instead of Half-life 3 while Squeenix does only FF13 sequels other than revive classics.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

-Square Enix plugged its ears with their fingers screaming " LALALALALALALA I'M ONLY MAKING THE GAMES THAT I WANT AND NOT WHAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ASKING LALALLALALALALALAL".

I would defend this by saying they don't have to listen to their customers (plus, Valve does the exact same thing, verbatim) but... I wish Square would abandon Final Fantasy. It's just such shit and it gets in the way of my Kingdom Hearts.

Yeah, but Valve is doing multiple games instead of Half-life 3 while Squeenix does only FF13 sequels other than revive classics.

Square Enix doesn't make games they just make interactive movies, to get the Square experience just watch Anime and every 10mins start randomly pressing buttons on a remote.

With that said making crappy games is hardly a breach of Principles or unethical business practices.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Dude are you talking to me because none of those quotes are mine.

Sorry about that, messed up my quotes. Was pretty tired when I posted that. Was originally going to correct you that the company is 'Activision Blizzard' and that Blizzard isn't so much a subsidiary of Activision as it is one half of the equation. But then decided it was mostly irrelevant. Somewhere along the line I got your quote mixed up with someone else's. Apologies.

 

[The_Lost_King]

Did you even need to ask? seriously in this forum here is how it goes down on how much people hate them:
BIG FAT #1 is EA
#2 is Activison
#3 is Ubisoft
#2 and #3 might need to be switched around.

Valve is garnering more votes than Ubisoft.

Explain.

There aren't as many valve fanboys as I thought. Maybe some people lost their account . Or maybe people don't like monopolies.

Off topic: when ever some one just says explain I always think of a Dalek screaming EX-PLAIN!

 

[MorganL4]

1. OP You knew EA would come in first/last ( depending on how you want to phrase it) before you even made the poll.

2. I will admit that I am surprised to see Valve get more votes than Microsoft.

 

[zehydra]

Where's Zynga on this poll?

 

[Bacaruda]

2. I will admit that I am surprised to see Valve get more votes than Microsoft.

Maybe because there is no real reason to hate them? Unless you are talking about "Game for Windows Live" thing. But they are quite excellent otherwise. And probably the best company on the poll.

 

[rob_simple]

I'm saying Valve. Because the man capable of doing great things that chooses not to is much worse than the man who knowingly releases shitty games because they can get away with it.

 

[MorganL4]

2. I will admit that I am surprised to see Valve get more votes than Microsoft.

Maybe because there is no real reason to hate them? Unless you are talking about "Game for Windows Live" thing. But they are quite excellent otherwise. And probably the best company on the poll.

My biggest problem with MS as a Publisher is that they killed Ensemble Studios, and then proceeded to have another dev they own develop and release an MMO based on the property that Ensemble created and made into the 3rd most successful RTS franchise in history ( Warcraft and Starcraft obviously being 1 and 2)

I loved the AoE series.... And I found Ensemble's closure rather sad.