Worst AAA publisher?

Who do you dislike most

  • Activision

    Votes: 1 6.3%

  • Capcom

    Votes: 2 12.5%

  • EA

    Votes: 4 25.0%

  • Konami

    Votes: 8 50.0%

  • Sega

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Ubisoft

    Votes: 1 6.3%

  • other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    16
NSY

NSY

Celestial Guide
A lot of AAA publishers have recently got a bad reputation from gamers for reasons that range from releasing the same game over and over to stuffing microtransactions into their games. It's the modern day that these companies want profit the and while profit (or at least break even) is required business to do well, however many publishers willing to go lengths to do maximize it. Here's a rundown of the most noticeable ones that have gotten a bad rep.

Activision: Responsible for killing of iconic franchises such as Crash, Spyro. Milking franchises until people stop buying them (Guitar Hero, Skylanders). Releasing sub par movie tie in games.

Capcom: Releasing questionable DLC and microtransactions, practices in this department include costumes, day one dlc and even once they did one that finishes the story, ( cancelling Mega Man Legends 3 and blaming fans and then not making any new more games in that franchise.

EA: Releasing sports shovelware, releasing games in unfinished states, buying out many smaller publishers and forcing microtransactions into them.

Konami: Treatment of Hideo Kojima which included cancellation of Silent Hills. Owns a bunch of popular IPs (Castlevania, Bomberman) and does nothing with them. Treatment of employees.

Sega: Releasing mediocre Sonic titles. Releasing mediocre tiltles in general. Dumping games like Bayonetta 2.

Ubisoft: Showing off demos that look the actual game resulting in a good amount of the games being disappointing. Milking franchises such as Just Dance and Assassin's Creed.

Here's my opinion from least worst to worst (that being said I think they're all bad to an extent): Ubisoft > Sega > EA (yes they're this low) > Activision > Capcom > Konami

Who do think is the worst, any that I didn't include that you don't like?
 
Re: Least favorite AAA publisher

capcom.

no question, not an if, just pure blind hate.

What they've done in recent times probably doesnt compare to the shit that konami pulled or activision, but the fact that they cancelled mml3 for purely bullshit reasons and just took a dump on sf5 just idk infuriates me.

It's like one sequel that you're just so pumped for you'd get the system just for that game, and then cancelled and you and people like you are blamed for it. I mean i know im just butthurt to hell and back about it, but they didnt even give us the prototype which they promised we would get even if mml3 was cancelled, but they didnt.

Sf5 yeah not too major but still, mostly the mml3 stuff.
 
Sega and Capcom are still mainly alright. They had some stupid decisions in recent years (mml3) but can still release gr8 games.

Konami went from one of the best publishers in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s to not releasing anything worthwhile anymore except for the last mgs game i guess. + the stuff you said, theyve really fallen low.

EA is publishing some okay games but the majority of their business is actual bullshit.

Ubisoft same I guess but they're even worse imo.

Can't say when the last time was I've actually liked an activision game.
 
well the biggest shit that irritated me about activision was its influence in world of warcraft, apparently they took some part in making WoW really fucking simple, barebones even. It basically became the equalivant of ttyd becoming sticker star.
 
Konami has just been running all of its biggest franchises through the shitter. If they're not using their most famous brands for pachinko machines, they're burning bridges with people who have done and could have done great things with them (Guillermo del Toro, Norman Reedus, David Hayter, Hideo Kojima...), running their employees through bad conditions, barring their employees from accepting awards, and just general shitty behaviour. Especially after the Metal Gear franchise ended on the sour Phantom Pain (the game mechanics were near-pitch perfect, but the story and characters were terrible), seeing the company focus solely on what will make them money is disheartening.
 
Nintendo should have been in the poll tbh but I don't think many people will vote for it considering we're a fairly Nintendo-biased forum and yes, the other triple As have done worse things.

I think EA is still my worst. Yeah I know, popular option, but it's so gleeful about being bad, and it's basically the industry leader of what not to do to your consumers. Any crappy thing that has been done to consumers, EA most likely has done it first and without any shame.
 
I vote capcom. They ruined Resident Evil , dont do stuff with Megaman and are overall terrible these days.

Then again my true vote goes to Nintendo and their awful awful awful treatment to their series these days.
 
I've could of included nintendo but if I did they would an odd one out as everyone else is third party. What Nintendo has done in the past few years hasn't been good most noticeably the Wii U marketing which was terrible and also their treatment of their own fans. I have small hope that the NX could save the company and Tatsumi Kimishima can put things right but it's unlikely.
 
Swiftie_Luma said:
Then again my true vote goes to Nintendo and their awful awful awful treatment to their series these days.
Click to expand...
which ones
 
Happy said:
Swiftie_Luma said:
Then again my true vote goes to Nintendo and their awful awful awful treatment to their series these days.
Click to expand...
which ones
Click to expand...

the ones that aren't mario, zelda, pokemon, or animal crossing

Kirby and maybe Fire Emblem are the only two series that I would consider to be well-managed. There's not an over abundance of them as to where people would be tired of seeing them and they deliver exactly what fans of those two series want, for the most part.
 
Threek said:
Happy said:
Swiftie_Luma said:
Then again my true vote goes to Nintendo and their awful awful awful treatment to their series these days.
Click to expand...
which ones
Click to expand...

the ones that aren't mario, zelda, pokemon, or animal crossing

Kirby and maybe Fire Emblem are the only two series that I would consider to be well-managed. There's not an over abundance of them as to where people would be tired of seeing them and they deliver exactly what fans of those two series want, for the most part.
Click to expand...

Actually no

The kirby and FE part is ok , but the other isnt

Theres No proper Mario adventure in the Wii U , to the levels of Galaxy.

Mario Tennis is in the beggining phase of being killed.

Mario Party is deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeead and buried deeper every year.

Mario Strikers is untouched

Baseball is untouched

Olympics is bad , less content than the Wii games.

Metroid is basically dead

F Zero is dead

Wheres the good animal crossing game again? Happy Home designer? Really?

Paper Mario was just killed .


Nintendo either buries their series in the obscurity or destroys them with terrible games. And thats disgusting.
 
You either die a fan favorite or live long enough to stagnate. I'm surprised the aforementioned Kirby and Fire Emblem have managed to stay fresh and in the spotlight for so long.
 
It's kinda unfair to judge the entire Mario series just for their platformers. For example, Mario Kart is always great, despite some of their flaws they have. There's also Super Smash Bros. too.

Well, it's a bit logical to say that those two system sellers would be the best treated out of all Nintendo series.
 
I really doesn't matter to me how Nintendo treats their games. It isn't HORRIBLE and definitely not to the same level of Activision, Capcom, and EA. Nintendo does have a few questionable PR-related decisions they've made, however, such as taking down videos of modded Mario playthroughs, imposing region locks in general, general screwing with the modding scene (such as Project M's disappearance from Nintendo-involved Smash tournaments), the entire Nintendo creator content program, Youtube in general, being overprotective of their IP (though I do see more involvement nowadays), and the amiibo stock (at least for Wave 3 & 4, but overall stock has been much better in later waves). At least one of these is unique to Nintendo: the Youtube creator content program.

To say Nintendo is the worst publisher because they publish mediocre 1st party titles is really stretching it, a knee-jerk reaction. amiibo Festival might be a stinking turd, but everything else seems just "okay" at worst and not a predictor for the future quality of the games (Paper Mario is a maybe, however, due to developers expressing interest into changing Paper Mario for two reasons: differentiation from Mario & Luigi and an interview saying that they wish for Sticker Star to be the standard). Even Ultra Smash, which isn't terrible per se, but mediocre and a disappointment and NOT a valid prediction for the future Mario Tennis series. Expecting Galaxy-levels of a Mario platformer is setting yourself up for disappointment; it's a really lofty and unreasonable expectation to have.

Even though you complain that Nintendo doesn't pay attention to other series, Sega does a much worse job at pretending they have other IPs not named Sonic. Capcom, wow, I don't know where to start. At least Nintendo's huge Smash Bros. games are still brimming with content unlike the bare-bones on-disc content in Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom. I don't know much otherwise about Capcom, but I don't think they're quite like Konami, which is pretty much dead at this point. I think whatever Nintendo does, other companies are worse, but this doesn't exempt Nintendo from harsh criticism whatsoever. I think the valid reasons for thinking Nintendo is bad is for those PR bombs I mentioned above, but even then, other companies do it worse.
 
Striker Mario said:
I really doesn't matter to me how Nintendo treats their games. It isn't HORRIBLE and definitely not to the same level of Activision, Capcom, and EA. Nintendo does have a few questionable PR-related decisions they've made, however, such as taking down videos of modded Mario playthroughs, imposing region locks in general, general screwing with the modding scene (such as Project M's disappearance from Nintendo-involved Smash tournaments), the entire Nintendo creator content program, Youtube in general, being overprotective of their IP (though I do see more involvement nowadays), and the amiibo stock (at least for Wave 3 & 4, but overall stock has been much better in later waves). At least one of these is unique to Nintendo: the Youtube creator content program.

To say Nintendo is the worst publisher because they publish mediocre 1st party titles is really stretching it, a knee-jerk reaction. amiibo Festival might be a stinking turd, but everything else seems just "okay" at worst and not a predictor for the future quality of the games (Paper Mario is a maybe, however, due to developers expressing interest into changing Paper Mario for two reasons: differentiation from Mario & Luigi and an interview saying that they wish for Sticker Star to be the standard). Even Ultra Smash, which isn't terrible per se, but mediocre and a disappointment and NOT a valid prediction for the future Mario Tennis series. Expecting Galaxy-levels of a Mario platformer is setting yourself up for disappointment; it's a really lofty and unreasonable expectation to have.

Even though you complain that Nintendo doesn't pay attention to other series, Sega does a much worse job at pretending they have other IPs not named Sonic. Capcom, wow, I don't know where to start. At least Nintendo's huge Smash Bros. games are still brimming with content unlike the bare-bones on-disc content in Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom. I don't know much otherwise about Capcom, but I don't think they're quite like Konami, which is pretty much dead at this point. I think whatever Nintendo does, other companies are worse, but this doesn't exempt Nintendo from harsh criticism whatsoever. I think the valid reasons for thinking Nintendo is bad is for those PR bombs I mentioned above, but even then, other companies do it worse.
Click to expand...
I basically agree with this. I can get why some people might be annoyed with Nintendo, but their actions aren't even close to the ridiculous stuff that EA, Konami, and the other big names have done.

Also, just noticed this:

NSY said:
Being the ones who happened to make Call of Duty.
Click to expand...
Oh... no? What's wrong with that? Regardless of your opinion of the franchise, I don't think its mere existence should be a strike against Activision.
 
Call of Duty is a favorite boogeyman for Nintendo fans.
 
Striker Mario said:
Call of Duty is a favorite boogeyman for Nintendo fans.
Click to expand...
DAE LE CALL OF DOOTY SUX?! LOL FAWFUL AND NINTENDO 4 LYFE?

Shit gets old. You're not some special snowflake because you're the one Nintendo fan at school surrounded by fans of Mainstream games.

Back on topic, I'll have to go with Konami. Mostly due to the whole mess involving taking Kojima's name off the game and so forth. And until proven wrong, I'm gonna assume their the reason Snake did not return for Smash 4. What really sealed the deal for me was the Game Awards where we leaned that they prevented Kojima from appearing despite the presence of MGSV at the awards. That's just awful.
 
Konami bought Hudson Soft, immediatly closed it down, and has done nothing with Hudson's assets beside a few mediocre Bomberman mobile games and releasing pc engine games on the Wii U VC. Even ignoring the bullshit they pulled in the past two years, this alone earned my contempt.
 
Glowsquid said:
Konami bought Hudson Soft, immediatly closed it down, and has done nothing with Hudson's assets beside a few mediocre Bomberman mobile games and releasing pc engine games on the Wii U VC. Even ignoring the bullshit they pulled in the past two years, this alone earned my contempt.
Click to expand...
Sell Bomberman to Nintendo so he can be in Smash
 
I say EA, I am tired of their overly repetitious "Madden and FIFA" crap every single goddamn time each year.
 
Time Turner said:
NSY said:
Being the ones who happened to make Call of Duty.
Click to expand...
Oh... no? What's wrong with that? Regardless of your opinion of the franchise, I don't think its mere existence should be a strike against Activision.
Click to expand...
its a generalized opinion, i dont hate them for that reason but many people do for it, i personally think it's a pretty dumb reason
 
If it's an invalid reason, then why add it alongside other valid reasons?
 
Striker Mario said:
If it's an invalid reason, then why add it alongside other valid reasons?
Click to expand...
its a commonly brought up reason and an actual reason why people hate it

ill remove it if it doesnt fit in
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back