Your favourite current publisher.

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Tough to say, but just based on their business practices, I'd say Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment. They publish great games (both Arkham games, the newest Mortal Kombat, the upcoming Injustice: Gods Among Us, and others), but how they treat companies working under them as well is why they are my favorite.

One example of this is with their purchase of Netherrealm Studios (made up of the team that made Mortal Kombat before Midway Games went under). According to Ed Boon himself, about two weeks into development, executives sat down to meet with him, saying that they understood he was used to a one-game-a-year schedule being enforced on him. However, they wanted him to take however long it took to make the game good. The result? Mortal Kombat reboot, one of the best received Mortal Kombat games ever, and easily the best received of the 3D games. And the development of "Injustice: Gods Among Us" has proven that those weren't just empty words.

I mean, after the newest Mortal Kombat game, the hardest work for a fighting game (the engine) is already developed. It would be easy to slam out a quick story in 6 months, reskin the characters and moves in 3 months, and tweak the graphics in 2 months, then send the game out after less than a year in development. Instead, it will be almost exactly 2 years between the release of Mortal Kombat and the release of Injustice: Gods Among Us. Why? Netherrealm Studios spent almost a year tweaking the online system because of the complaints from players of Mortal Kombat. Considering Netherrealm Studios is owned entirely by WB Interactive, the publisher could have easily bumped up the developmental schedule to force the team to move on to the "meat" of the game. Instead, they showed great trust in allowing the developers to work.

In short, if EA makes promises, then doesn't deliver, WB Interactive does both, all without being too confident. Hell, just on the new Mortal Kombat game, they sold 3.7 million copies across all platforms, more than any other Mortal Kombat game. Arkham Asylum? Just under 7 million copies. Arkham City? 8.4 million copies sold. All of those don't include the digital game sales. And yet, despite those great sales, Warner Bros. has only opened up one new studio, and even then only for mobile and tablet games.

TL;DR, Warner Bros. Interactive, for showing business sense, and being a great publisher for developers.

 

[Pinkamena]

Definately Take-Two - or 2K or whatever the hell they're called - simply because I haven't played a game by them that made me feel like an accused pirate and/or just another wallet.

They seem to give their developers a lot of free reign in taking 'risky' innovative decisions while also allowing them to take as long as they need to make their games the best they can be. And you know what kind of results these practices turn out?

We get games like GTA, BioShock, Borderlands, Red Dead and XCOM. I like that.

I agree. 2K seems to be very chill in regards to what they let their game companies do. My vote goes to them as well.

 

[Mr. Omega]

I'm going to go with Nintendo. High-quality titles made in-house, yes, but they also do publish great second and occasionally third party games. The games are fun, well designed, and usually manage to strike the right balance between challenging and accessible.

What's more, they actually are handling DLC and the pre-order culture FAR better than anyone else in the industry. I've never had to register a game to an account or enter some stupid online pass. The DLC in the games are often just bonus levels that have nothing to do with the story, or are cute little fan-service easter eggs. If the rest of their games moving forward follow the model set by Fire Emblem Awakening (rewarding early adopters with free DLC instead of punishing everyone just to hurt used sales with online passes? WHAT A NOVEL CONCEPT!), then I see a bright future as a fan of their products.

And that's really what it comes down to. I might feel a bit bored with all the safety of new Mario games, or left out when there's a drought of games for their systems, but I've never felt like they demanded loyalty from me. I go to Club Nintendo because they give me free stuff for doing so, not because there's a chunk of the game missing that I need to register online. I pre-order games like Kid Icarus Uprising and Fire Emblem because they give me a free copy of the NES Kid Icarus or a free artbook that other companies would make you get the more expensive "Super Edition" to get, not because there are levels that are pre-order exclusive. Nintendo has earned my loyalty through consistent quality products and rewarding dedication.

Plus while the WiiU might not have that many games now, we all know they're coming. Some might find the constant release of Mario/Zelda/Pokemon games annoying, and I understand that. But to me, that just means I know I'll always be getting my money's worth with a new console.

That being said, they still need to sort some shit out. Particularly the fact that they blatantly favor their Japanese audience over the western audience. Plus, they need to flex their muscles as a publisher more often. Biggest news pre-launch for the WiiU was the announcement of Bayonetta 2. They need to do that more. Yes, the "hardcores" will whine, but they whine about Nintendo no matter what. And while they are making new IPs with downloadable games like Harmoknight and Pushmo, a proper console release of a new series would also be appreciated.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

I'm stuck between deciding with Nintendo because of the Wii U I'm wanting to get along with Deus ex HR directors cut with bayonetta 2.

Then there's Konami for the Metal Gear franchise and High Moon studios for the Transformers, I just like them all really.

I've already owned DEHR before and believe it or not I'd be willing to buy the directors cut for Wii U just because it adds to my collection for the U library.

 

[Phlakes]

This is a tough one. When thinking about the question, I thought of which publisher put out most of my games or favorite games. The unfortunate conclusion was EA. "But wait!" I said "That's just it! They publish the games, it's the devs who deserve the credit!

To be fair, those games wouldn't exist if EA didn't invest lots and lots of money in them.

OT: Just looking at games I'd probably say EA or 2K/Take Two, looking at other things then probably Valve if only for the wallet-shrinking wonders of Steam.

Although I'm tempted to just go with EA because fuck da police.

 

[TrevHead]

If Atlus didn't treat PAL regions like some back water 3rd world country I would be voting for them.

Looking back at this console gen I would have to say SEGA as so many of my fave games has their name on the box. Shame no one could be bothered to buy them even though the games do have a larger cult following nowadays.

Rising Star Games comes in second due to localising shmups for the PAL region, which is a largely risky and unprofitable venture in itself but then going out of their way to bring them to the US market too, either through unlocking the region protection like with Dodonpachi Resurrection 360 or full on localisation with Akia Katana 360 and Under Defeat HD PS3.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Either EA (for ME2 and 3), Bethesda (for Dishonored) or 2K (for Borderlands 1 and 2).

Can't really decide.

 

[Vykrel]

Chalk another one up for 2K. Sure they've done some silly publisher things (such as forcing multiplayer into Spec Ops: The Line)

Took the words right out of my mouth. I mean, it's understandable that they didn't want to gamble on a reboot for a relatively unknown IP without adding more replayability, but it was definitely a mistake and it hurt the overall product.

Hopefully, they've learned their lesson and will not force any more developers to add anything to their games that they didn't plan or want to.

 

[Doom972]

Before they announced Deus Ex: Human Revolution - Director's Cut for the WiiU, Square Enix was my favorite publisher. Some of my favorite games are from Eidos, and for the most part I think they did a good job reviving Eidos franchises.

OMG, they are going to make a special edition of a loved classic AND make it exclusive to the most powerful console in the market? What a crime.

They fixed almost everything that was bad about that game (not that much bad about it, but it's there), improved on it, and then made it exclusive to a console that 90% of the fans won't buy. It's not a crime (since it's legal), but it's a dick move. The most powerful console? Yes, a bit more powerful than the other two is technically the most powerful. Talk to me in a few months when the PS4 comes out, and we'll see how that excuse hold.

Eh . . . yeah I sorry I would have to agree with the other dude that I don't understand what your problem is. I have HR, I enjoyed it, boss battles and all and no updated version on a console that I wont buy isn't going to change that. It's like getting mad at Nintendo or whoever because Bayonetta 2 is a Wii U exclusive.


Look at the alternative. They didn't have to update the game AT ALL. Would that be a dick move? Just releasing it and not fixing people's perceived problems? No. So why then is fixing it and granting exclusivity to Nintendo (who no doubt is paying them money for that exclusivity) a dick move? If Sony or MS wanted an exclusive updated game they should have thrown money at Eidos/Square too but they didn't so whatever.

It's a dick move because as a good business, and not a crappy one, I expect them to deliver the best experience that they can provide with the resources available to them (while still remaining profitable of course). If they would've said that they couldn't, I would say fair enough - but here they fixed the things they learned about through fan feedback, only to provide this improved experience to new customers, while telling basically telling new consumers to get a a new console and a new copy of the game to enjoy it the way it was meant. That's a dick move.

 

[Snotnarok]

The publisher that doesn't screw me over with shitty DRM and tons of content they pulled from the game to make overpriced DLC. Why would anyone favor one money eating monster over another money eating monster instead of just ...you know favor the games, the things that have little to with irritating scumbag moves?

 

[cjspyres]

Before they announced Deus Ex: Human Revolution - Director's Cut for the WiiU, Square Enix was my favorite publisher. Some of my favorite games are from Eidos, and for the most part I think they did a good job reviving Eidos franchises.

OMG, they are going to make a special edition of a loved classic AND make it exclusive to the most powerful console in the market? What a crime.

They fixed almost everything that was bad about that game (not that much bad about it, but it's there), improved on it, and then made it exclusive to a console that 90% of the fans won't buy. It's not a crime (since it's legal), but it's a dick move. The most powerful console? Yes, a bit more powerful than the other two is technically the most powerful. Talk to me in a few months when the PS4 comes out, and we'll see how that excuse hold.

Eh . . . yeah I sorry I would have to agree with the other dude that I don't understand what your problem is. I have HR, I enjoyed it, boss battles and all and no updated version on a console that I wont buy isn't going to change that. It's like getting mad at Nintendo or whoever because Bayonetta 2 is a Wii U exclusive.


Look at the alternative. They didn't have to update the game AT ALL. Would that be a dick move? Just releasing it and not fixing people's perceived problems? No. So why then is fixing it and granting exclusivity to Nintendo (who no doubt is paying them money for that exclusivity) a dick move? If Sony or MS wanted an exclusive updated game they should have thrown money at Eidos/Square too but they didn't so whatever.

It's a dick move because Deus Ex: HR isn't an exclusive game, but they're making the patch exclusive. The patch that fixes basically everything that was wrong with the game. Don't even try to tell me that you wouldn't be pissed if you had a game that had problems, but your console would never get the patch, because of "exclusivity".

Edit: A non-exclusive "exclusive" game.

Edit #2: OT: I'd have to say.....Hm...this is pretty hard. I really like Bethesda, but I also really like CD Projekt. Then you also have to throw in Take-two(2k)....Tie. I can't choose, it's too hard. It seems like these are the top 3 winners though.

 

[blackrave]

Easy, Bethesda
Since I am a huge fan TES and FO
Other games, like Dishonored, are also great

[sub]BTW what is status on Prey2?[/sub]

 

[cjspyres]

It's a dick move because Deus Ex: HR isn't an exclusive game, but they're making the patch exclusive. The patch that fixes basically everything that was wrong with the game. Don't even try to tell me that you wouldn't be pissed if you had a game that had problems, but your console would never get the patch, because of "exclusivity".

Except it's not a "patch" it's a new edition of the game.
It's like the Armored edition of Arkham City.

I have HR, I loved it, and I'm not pissed. I accept the games flaws and all just as I do other games which are equally flawed in different ways.

It's only flawed if you get any version that isn't the WiiU version. And that's the damn problem about it. This idea of, "You can only buy the good version on this console", is a complete dick move by the company. All of the problems wrong with the PC/xbox 360/PS3 versions can be fixed with a patch, that we know they've already made. Do you think that they just took the game and built it from the ground up, JUST for the WiiU?


Edit: Also about this:

Look at the alternative. They didn't have to update the game AT ALL. Would that be a dick move? Just releasing it and not fixing people's perceived problems? No.

YES! That would've been a dick move. If you know something is wrong with your game, you fucking fix it.

 

[ResonanceSD]

2K are owning it at the moment, they're doing great across the board!

 

[MetaKnight670]

My pick is 2K. XCOM, Civ 5, Spec Ops: The Line, Borderlands 2, Mafia 2...need I say more?
They just seem to have a lot of my favourite games. I didn't even have Steam before I saw what the 2K bundle had it in, then I signed up for Steam and bought it that very same night that I saw it.

Edit: Decided to peruse the other answers and was sort of amazed that someone said EA. True I loved their Mass Effect but I don't like their practices.

Double edit: Now that I think about it I don't mind Bethesda either. But I guess it isn't really that I have loved any of their games either...

 

[halfeclipse]

Paradox Interactive.

They sure get greedy with the DLC, but the niche games that they are supporting from that are totally woth it.

How do they get greedy with the DLC? 2 Bucks for an optional sprite pack and 20 bucks for an xpack is hardly egregious?

 

[cwmdulais]

Paradox because i love me some grand strategy and even without those they still got some really cool unusual games (magicka, showdown effect and mount&blade for example)