# Best Game Publishers



## BabyBlueGamer (Oct 2, 2012)

Based off of game franchises you like from your personal opinions, The publisher companies ethics, and the way they do business wat are your fav publishers?

EA (Mass Effect, Dead Space), Ubisoft(Assassins Creed, Splinter Cell), 2K (BioShock and Borderlands), Microsoft Games (Halo), Warner Bros. Games (Batman Arkham Series), THQ (Destroy All Humans, WWE, Nick Games), Crytek (Crysis), and Nintendo (Mario, Kirby, Pokemon, Metroid Prime Trilogy, Star Fox, Starfy, and SUPER SMASH BROS!) are my favorites. Just for their games and ethics. Valve (Left 4 Dead, Portal, Team Fortress, Half-Life) is good at both and does business the best, their my favorite. Just had 2 share


----------



## nullptr (Sep 21, 2012)

Well I know who's not the best. How many guesses will it take?


----------



## CrimsonTrigger (Jun 28, 2011)

I have no idea. How much does a publisher influence the development of a game?

I guess I'll just name From Software completely randomly. They published my favourite PS3 game, that game being 3D Dot Game Heroes, and they also made the Demon's/Dark Souls games, even though they aren't games I'm fond of. But I always appreciate developers and publishers who do something different from what everyone else is doing.


----------



## Albedo (Feb 16, 2013)

Namco Bandai (Tales, Xenosaga, Dot hack, Naruto ninja storm)
Square Enix (Final Fantasy, Star Ocean, Kingdom Hearts)
Atlus ( SMT series including Persona)
Naughty Dog (Jak and Daxter, Uncharted and likely Last of US)
Konami (Metal Gear Solid and suikoden)


----------



## nullptr (Sep 21, 2012)

Fine the best would have to be 2k, ubisoft, valve, and sega.


----------



## minimized (Nov 17, 2007)

Atlus and Nintendo would be the two that come to mind. On the other hand, EA and Activision are two that I would like to drop-kick.


----------



## IcySoul (Apr 8, 2013)

SEGA because Sonic.

Activision are pretty much the absolute worst in existence though.


----------



## AceEmoKid (Apr 27, 2012)

Square Enix, Konami, Namco, and Valve.


----------



## pitifultunic (Apr 8, 2013)

Publishers dont actually make the game, they just pay for advertising and get it out to people. However my favourite game _developers_ are Bethesda. No contest.


----------



## Implicate (Feb 1, 2011)

I'd have to go with Valve.


----------



## wallenstein (Mar 27, 2013)

Bethesda, 2K, SEGA


----------



## erasercrumbs (Dec 17, 2009)

minimized said:


> Atlus and Nintendo would be the two that come to mind. On the other hand, EA and Activision are two that I would like to drop-kick.


Ditto. Nintendo and Atlus are my favorites, as well. It's not that EA doesn't publish good games, but they often harangue developers into diluting otherwise excellent games to make them more 'marketable.'


----------



## gorbulas (Feb 13, 2004)

Its a no brainer that EA is the worst. But if you look at it, they also publish the best series(by buying out developers) (we miss you bioware and maxis)

Lots of good publishers out there! Warner Bros., 2K, THQ are all good ones.


----------



## Fruitcake (Jan 19, 2012)

Valve and Amanita Design.


----------



## Diacetylmorphine (Mar 9, 2011)

Rockstar Games, Square, Squeenix, Valve, Sony and Nintendo I guess...? 

EA and activision kind of disgust me, but I enjoy some of their games.


----------



## Monotony (Mar 11, 2012)

galacticsenator said:


> Well I know who's not the best. How many guesses will it take?


EA, Activision, Bethesda


----------



## mezzoforte (May 16, 2010)

Square Enix


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

I'm haven't really been a huge Playstation fan, but I think the way Sony are acting now, being super friendly and cooperative with developers and open to experimentation and new ideas, is really good.
Sega seems to be taking chances as well.

There are games and developers that I love, which are sadly stuck with bad publishers.


----------



## TrueAstralKnight (Jun 23, 2012)

I really like Atlus, Squaresoft/Enix, and Capcom.

Also I found this humorous:


----------



## Cylon (Mar 15, 2013)

Big fan of: Konami, Bethesda and Valve.


----------



## lzzy (Nov 28, 2012)

EA is terrible, absolutely terrible!

I like Ubisoft quite a bit, used to like Capcom but they definitely went downhill


----------



## zojirushi (Apr 8, 2013)

I had EA Tetris on my phone and it was really easy. Nevertheless, beating it gave me a sense of accomplishment, so I'll have to go with EA.


----------



## TrueAstralKnight (Jun 23, 2012)

lzzy said:


> EA is terrible, absolutely terrible!
> 
> I like Ubisoft quite a bit, used to like Capcom but they definitely went downhill


Well at least Capcom is bringing back Phoenix Wright on 3DS.


----------



## nullptr (Sep 21, 2012)

zojirushi said:


> I had EA Tetris on my phone and it was really easy. Nevertheless, beating it gave me a sense of accomplishment, so I'll have to go with EA.


Sadly that's probably the only game they haven't screwed up.


----------



## CrimsonTrigger (Jun 28, 2011)

It will please you all to know that EA was voted worst company in America for the second year in a row. Congrats, EA.


----------



## lzzy (Nov 28, 2012)

TrueAstralKnight said:


> Well at least Capcom is bringing back Phoenix Wright on 3DS.


Their games are more than decent (though they should give us a real Resident Evil!) but the on-disc DLC pissed a lot of people off!


----------



## JustAPhase (Mar 4, 2013)

The only publisher I enjoy is Valve. 

Other than that, I feel publishers ruin games more often than they help them. ME3 was extremely rushed because EA was money hungry. Borderlands 2 DLC is overpriced and some isn't even included with the season pass because of 2K's marketing decisions.
I'm just glad they didn't force Irrational Games to do anything.. "Irrational" with Bioshock Infinite. That game made me so happy.


----------



## TrueAstralKnight (Jun 23, 2012)

lzzy said:


> Their games are more than decent (though they should give us a real Resident Evil!) but the on-disc DLC pissed a lot of people off!


Revelations was pretty good, besides the name itself. I wish they called it RE: Undertow to reflect that sinking feeling of being stranded on an ocean liner with a bunch of hideous looking sea monsters. That and how Assassin's Creed came out with "Revelations" just a few months earlier.


----------



## s12345 (Jul 11, 2011)

Square Enix, Konami, Namco, Valve and Sid Meier (he knows what he's talking about when he makes games!).


----------



## BabyBlueGamer (Oct 2, 2012)

Are publishers really doing that bad with video games? Other than DLC marketing which I totally hate, how are they RUINING games?


----------



## Joe (May 18, 2010)

Valve are the only one that comes to mind that I really like (cheap prices). 

Could anyone list me the reasons activision is bad? Lots of the things seem like non-essentials that people hate on (Not connected to storylines ect).


----------



## s12345 (Jul 11, 2011)

I dunno. My experience with Activision O2 has been a nice one. I've played stuff like Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 & 3, which was by Activision O2.


----------



## Charmander (Sep 5, 2012)

Ubisoft + Sega

I guess I'm nostalgic about Activision games. Haven't played any recent ones though.


----------



## CrimsonTrigger (Jun 28, 2011)

BabyBlueGamer said:


> Are publishers really doing that bad with video games? Other than DLC marketing which I totally hate, how are they RUINING games?


Well, you have to look at this from a different perspective. The average gamer believes that publishers are inherently evil that actively seek to ruin their games. And no, I'm not saying this because I'm a fanboy. This is the kind of attitude that the vocal minority spreads. I doubt any developer actively tries to make a bad game. Sometimes they have ideas that just don't work, or maybe the management and producers get in the way. Like it or not, the publishers are the one throwing in their money, so they do get a say in what works and what doesn't work. Their goal is to make money, and unfortunately, sometimes the creative aspects of a game have to be sacrificed in order to make their money. That's not to say that the publisher always knows what's best for the game itself (sometimes they can be very smart, like Atlus for example), but they're definitely going to do whatever it takes to make the game sell as much as possible.

For the developer, it's up to them to learn from their mistakes and make their next games better. As much as people hate on Capcom, they _did_ learn a lesson from their on-disc DLC fiasco and they said they wouldn't do it anymore. Of course, we'll have to wait and see if they live up to their promises, but they handled it professionally by trying to justify their decision (even if their justification was stupid) and then by saying they wouldn't do it anymore.

But I'm getting off topic. Let's look at some reasoning for the perception that publishers are ruining games.

The problem is this: Gamers demand high-end graphics. They get high-end graphics, but they also demand that the cost of the product not increase beyond the price that games cost now. With high production values comes high costs, and with high costs comes greater risk for losses. Take Square-Enix, for example. Their CEO has recently stepped down because they've lost a lot of money in their recent fiscal year, and that's because of three games specifically: Sleeping Dogs, Hitman: Absolution, and Tomb Raider. All very well received games that sold a lot of units, but here's the problem: They didn't sell _enough_.

Tomb Raider has sold approximately 3.4 million units so far. Are they seriously telling us that a game that sold 3.4 million units is actually _losing_ money? Well, according to them it is. And that's the problem. It's a game with very high production values, but the price of the game doesn't reflect that. Shovelware titles can retail at $60 and they can make money despite selling low numbers. I played a Wii game called Rhythm Heaven Fever that actually retailed at $29.99. Obviously a low cost game and I would imagine that despite the game not selling huge amounts, it likely made money and didn't cost too much to make judging on the price alone. And it's not a bad game either. It's a very fun, well-made game that's cheaper than a shovelware title.

Back to my point. So why is it that a game with far higher production values than a shovelware title has to sell at the exact same price? Easy: Because gamers are too demanding. And I'm not bashing anybody. I'm just saying that's how it is. People are inherently selfish and want the best they can get for a low cost. All things considered, is $60 really _that_ bad for a game? It's only $10 more than what they cost last gen. Some snes games like Chrono Trigger costed upwards to $80, but you're getting a very high quality game for it, so it's worth it. You charge $80 for a game these days, you'll get venom spit on you, regardless of quality.

Look at the PS4. I've heard people say they want it to be on par with high-end PCs, but they also don't want the price to be $599 like it was with the PS4. I doubt it'll be that high and I think Sony will price it reasonably, but if consumers are seriously expecting $299 or around that price for a console like this, they're delirious.

It's going to be expensive, like it or not, and Sony is probably going to take loses on the system like they usually do. That's not good for a company whose financial situation is in the gutter. When it comes the system, people are focusing mainly on the graphics and specs. Personally, I'm more worried that its potential price will turn people off from buying it and it will be a total flop. People love to criticize the Wii U for not selling and not having support, but come launch time for the PS4, we're probably going to see the exact same problem. But if the PS4 really is as high quality as it sounds, then people have to face the harsh reality: You get what you pay for.

I'm saying that people want high quality for a low cost. It doesn't work like that. The developers for Tomb Raider did not have to develop it with high production values. They could have cut back on a few areas and lowered the cost and they probably would have actually made some money. But then you'd get those people whining about how the graphics don't look up to par with everything else that's out there. Well, if they want this franchise to continue, they're going to have to deal with it. The AAA model for video games is not sustainable in this economy. The publisher is going to have to learn a lesson from this and focus their efforts on lower cost, but comparable quality experiences. It's the only way they're going to make their money.

And to end this long tirade, as much as I hate the way that these companies are handling DLC, I honestly can't blame them. They're nickle and diming people for the sake of making money, and with the direction gaming is going in, it'll probably just get worse. Developers complain about high production costs, but don't seem to be willing to lower them for the sake of profit. Whose fault is it? The gamers? The publishers? The economy? It's hard to say, but it doesn't change the fact that the gaming industry as a whole is suffering as a result of this.

So everything I said probably isn't coherent, but those are my thoughts on the subject. I think most developers mean well when they make their games, but they're going to have to learn that they can't just throw money at their problems to make them go away. They need to find more practical solutions, and if that means making sacrifices in terms of production values, then make those sacrifices and work on making the best possible games at an affordable rate.


----------



## CrimsonTrigger (Jun 28, 2011)

jJoe said:


> Valve are the only one that comes to mind that I really like (cheap prices).
> 
> Could anyone list me the reasons activision is bad? Lots of the things seem like non-essentials that people hate on (Not connected to storylines ect).


I don't follow Activision, so I honestly don't know. But my perception has been this: COD sucks, Activision publishses it. Therefore, Activision sucks. It doesn't help that COD sells incredibly well, comes out yearly and has actually affected the way that other developers are making their games now.

Actually, I don't think I've ever seen a coherent argument as to why COD sucks except for the fact that it sells a lot and is always the same game. I have no interest in them and I don't like most modern FPS games, but they actually look like solid games to me. I'm just trying to take an objective view on the situation, which everybody else has a difficult time doing apparently.


----------



## CrimsonTrigger (Jun 28, 2011)

lzzy said:


> Their games are more than decent (though they should give us a real Resident Evil!) but the on-disc DLC pissed a lot of people off!


Revelations is just as "real" as any other Resident Evil game, even if it's not exactly like the old ones. Capcom did say they were probably going to go in a different direction with their next game based on the feedback between Revelations and 6. As much as I loved RE6 (yeah, I did. Oops), it didn't feel at all like a Resident Evil game and I'd like to see them try something new at this point. They can still have the old atmosphere, but I doubt they'll ever make a new game exactly like that with the same controls and camera angles. They need to make something that utilizes current console capabilities while still staying true the series origins.


----------



## Fruitcake (Jan 19, 2012)

CrimsonTrigger said:


> Well, you have to look at this from a different perspective...


Whoa, that was an interesting post. Thanks.


----------



## lzzy (Nov 28, 2012)

CrimsonTrigger said:


> Revelations is just as "real" as any other Resident Evil game, even if it's not exactly like the old ones. Capcom did say they were probably going to go in a different direction with their next game based on the feedback between Revelations and 6. As much as I loved RE6 (yeah, I did. Oops), it didn't feel at all like a Resident Evil game and I'd like to see them try something new at this point. They can still have the old atmosphere, but I doubt they'll ever make a new game exactly like that with the same controls and camera angles. They need to make something that utilizes current console capabilities while still staying true the series origins.


I'm playing revelations right now on the 3ds, granted I haven't made it far but it seems a bit too easy! I'm still toting weapons and ammo like it's Call of Duty and (besides that forced section) I'd never had to run away from an enemy that I couldn't take on.

I quite liked RE 4 and 5 too, still waiting to buy 6 when it's on some sort of sale but it's sad that it replaced the real horror game. I'd be fine if they gave the BSAA their own spin-off kinda game but it's not really Resident Evil (in my opinion)


----------



## renegade disaster (Jul 28, 2009)

current publishers;

namco, capcom, acclaim entertainment, atari, atlus, nintendo, konami, rockstar, sega, sony computer entertainment.

square enix have a long history of great games behind them but they've changed quite a bit.

EA

they started off as a publisher I liked back in the 90's but in the last decade they seem to show more of an attitude where they don't care about their fans. I dunno if that's changed much recently though.


----------



## BabyBlueGamer (Oct 2, 2012)

CrimsonTrigger you made this industry come alot more clear with your essay/lecture thnk u


----------



## CrimsonTrigger (Jun 28, 2011)

Something else I forgot to mention. EA said that in order for the Dead Space franchise to continue, Dead Space 3 apparently has to sell around 5 million copies. Want to know how many copies it has sold since launch? Well, according to vgchartz (which isn't realiable, but it's the best source I have), it's sold 1.16 million copies in total. Wow. That is pathetic. That is yet another example of publishers cannibalizing themselves with their ultra high-end, but also high risk, development cycles. It's no secret that people think we're heading into a another video game crash soon and that indie developers will be the future of gaming. Smaller games like that usually don't need to sell millions of copies in order to turn a profit.


----------



## BabyBlueGamer (Oct 2, 2012)

> Something else I forgot to mention. EA said that in order for the Dead Space franchise to continue, Dead Space 3 apparently has to sell around 5 million copies. Want to know how many copies it has sold since launch? Well, according to vgchartz (which isn't realiable, but it's the best source I have), it's sold 1.16 million copies in total. Wow. That is pathetic. That is yet another example of publishers cannibalizing themselves with their ultra high-end, but also high risk, development cycles. It's no secret that people think we're heading into a *another video game crash soon* and that indie developers will be the future of gaming. Smaller games like that usually don't need to sell millions of copies in order to turn a profit.


EA is being a little ratchet and there was a video game crash in the past?! when?!


----------



## renegade disaster (Jul 28, 2009)

BabyBlueGamer said:


> there was a video game crash in the past?! when?!


back in the 80s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983


----------



## ThisIsWater (Apr 12, 2013)

Atlus has my complete trust as a consumer


----------



## CrimsonTrigger (Jun 28, 2011)

BabyBlueGamer said:


> EA is being a little ratchet and there was a video game crash in the past?! when?!


Yup, back in the 80s. The market was oversaturated with bad games, and without any way to tell which ones were good and bad, consumers just stopped buying them. People not buying games means no money for publishers and developers.

Even if we have the internet today, it doesn't mean much if even a game that sells 4 million copies can't turn a profit. In this economy, people are extremely picky about the games they buy, so that means they aren't going to take a risk on non-mainstream games. They'll put their money towards the next Call of Duty before anything else.

It's probably not going to be anywhere near as bad as it was if it actually happens, but I think the AAA development model is coming to an end soon. Once people finally get sick of Call of Duty (and it'll happen eventually), developers aren't going to have something to rip off anymore.


----------



## Noll (Mar 29, 2011)

Not EA lol.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

Valve. Nintendo.


----------



## nml (Jan 21, 2012)

not sure what you mean by publisher, I'll assume that means the game developers.

Anyway, Square, Konamit. Oh and of course Rare, though there's a sad story there.


----------



## always starting over (Mar 15, 2013)

Sacrieur said:


> Valve. Nintendo.


Yep, always consistent and different. I also with Ensemble Studios was still around, next to Starcraft, they made the best RTS games ever.


----------



## pudding (Nov 28, 2012)

ATLUS!
They have all my favorite games: SMT, Catherine, Trauma Center/Team, Zero Escape....


----------



## altqq (Apr 14, 2012)

Valve without a doubt is my favorite, Irrational games (Not sure if these guys are the devs or the publishers of the bioshock series), Blizzard ( WARCRAFT 3 AND STARCRAFT 2, NEED I SAY MORE?), Ubisoft for the assassins creed series!


Oh and, **** activision for buying blizzard and ruining it.


----------



## JustAPhase (Mar 4, 2013)

altqq said:


> Valve without a doubt is my favorite, Irrational games (Not sure if these guys are the devs or the publishers of the bioshock series), Blizzard ( WARCRAFT 3 AND STARCRAFT 2, NEED I SAY MORE?), Ubisoft for the assassins creed series!
> 
> Oh and, **** activision for buying blizzard and ruining it.


Irrational games developed the first Bioshock, and Bioshock infinite. 2K games published it.

Bioshock 2 was developed by 2K Marin, because they attempted to milk more money off the series, by hiring a cheaper developing crew.

Ken Levine, the creative director at Irrational, created the world of bioshock. The game was meant to be the spiritual successor to his last hit, System Shock 2. He does not consider Bioshock 2 to be a real addition to the storyline.


----------



## CoolRanch (Mar 24, 2013)

Pretty much any besides EA or Blizzard.


----------



## Rixy (Oct 4, 2009)

CrimsonTrigger said:


> Once people finally get sick of Call of Duty (and it'll happen eventually), developers aren't going to have something to rip off anymore.


I think there will probably some other concept or genre that will be held down and butt fecked for millions and millions once Call of Duty dies. It's like crappy child celebrities; they just...don't....go away.


----------



## Nefury (May 9, 2011)

valve!

Kappa


----------



## RoseWhiteRoseRed (Apr 14, 2013)

probably 2k. but really Rockstar is the best


----------



## renegade disaster (Jul 28, 2009)

also like to add in bohemia interactive as a developer (if i'm allowed , we don't have a thread for developers afaik). their attention to detail in respect to realism is admirable.


----------



## The Phantom Pain (Oct 6, 2010)

Square, Capcom, and Konami


----------

