After swtor I'd say bioware. Before swtor.. EA I guess?
Anyone who votes for bioware knows nothing about bad game companies, releasing a game that is not what you wanted is radicaly different then releasing a game that doesnt work, that they lie to you about and that they also steal your money.
Still would put Cryptic on the list becuase they had AAA releases atleast STO was supposed to be.
After swtor I'd say bioware. Before swtor.. EA I guess?
Anyone who votes for bioware knows nothing about bad game companies, releasing a game that is not what you wanted is radicaly different then releasing a game that doesnt work, that they lie to you about and that they also steal your money.
Still would put Cryptic on the list becuase they had AAA releases atleast STO was supposed to be.
Bioware in its old form does not exist. It is wholey owned by EA.. And trust me EA is one of the worst thereby Bioware is in the same boat being an extension of its master..
Furthermore the poll isn't clearly defined, do you mean worst developer as in ethics (ie buying game companies, rebranding everything to their name, destroying their rep then moving on. Ie Origin-EA, EA-Mythic, Bioware-Mythic, not to mention making deals with indie developers then breaking yoru contract (/cough Bethesda's work on Madden) Or do you mean an actual poorly coded/managed product.
SOE might be guilty of the latter, But EA is guilty of both...
Cryptic have been the worst a long time, even if I can´t say that I am 100% sure that it will stay that way, a lot of the problems were probably due their last owner Atari cheaping things up.
Champions online and Star trek online, no company on the list have messed up worst that that beside maybe SOE but SOE at least did Everquest which was good and EQ2 that was acceptable. Cryptics masteropiece is City of heroes that is playable at least but not enough to save them for my list.
City of Heroes/City of Villians make Cryptic a 'AAA' developer. That game made more than most other games combined. They also won many "Game of the Year' awards at the time of its release. Since then however Cryptic has been on a serious nose dive in both quality of game play and quality of content in every game they've built on the 'Craptic' Engine of theirs. They deserve to win this poll hands down as the absolulely worst 'AAA' developer ever. Needless to say I voted 'Other'.
I voted blizzard solely because in my option they screwed up the mmorpg market (For 7 years) with WoW and now everyone making easier and easier MMO that walk you through the game on a very short leash, its only now that the MMORPG market is finaly starting to move forward again after that leap back that blizzard did.
Not surprising that SoE is getting the most votes, kind sad though. Consider that SoE is the only company on the list who has really ever taken any risks in the genre and they may not have worked, but at least they are trying.
Aye SoE is one of my favorite developers atm because there willing to take chances, SoE seem to be hit and miss they either make a realy good game (Everquest 1 and 2, Champion on Norrath, Planet Side and even Free Realm) or they mess up and make a bad game/bad discision however most people remember the bad thing over the good so its no surprsing people vote for SoE.
If there was a topic about the best Developers personaly i would vote Arenanet and SoE for atleast trying something different that remaking a similar version of World of Warcraft. I would rather a company try something new and fail that not trying at all and playing it safe, You dont advance in the genre if you dont do new things all you get is the same game over and over that may vary slightly.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Not surprising that SoE is getting the most votes, kind sad though. Consider that SoE is the only company on the list who has really ever taken any risks in the genre and they may not have worked, but at least they are trying.
Aye SoE is one of my favorite developers atm because there willing to take chances, SoE seem to be hit and miss they either make a realy good game (Everquest 1 and 2, Champion on Norrath, Planet Side and even Free Realm) or they mess up and make a bad game/bad discision however most people remember the bad thing over the good so its no surprsing people vote for SoE.
Sony didn't make EQ1, Verant did. They just took it over then put out a lot of bad expansions. (Although their AA system was really good.) When you take EQ1 off that list there really isn't much there. Still they are 2nd on my list. Even eq2 was better than anything Turbine put out.
I voted SOE as well. They ruin remarkable games (SWG) and cockblock others by putting them on life support (Vanguard). Cryptic comes in second for releasing shitty, half-assed money grabs for games.
Not surprising that SoE is getting the most votes, kind sad though. Consider that SoE is the only company on the list who has really ever taken any risks in the genre and they may not have worked, but at least they are trying.
Aye SoE is one of my favorite developers atm because there willing to take chances, SoE seem to be hit and miss they either make a realy good game (Everquest 1 and 2, Champion on Norrath, Planet Side and even Free Realm) or they mess up and make a bad game/bad discision however most people remember the bad thing over the good so its no surprsing people vote for SoE.
Sony didn't make EQ1, Verant did. They just took it over then put out a lot of bad expansions. (Although their AA system was really good.) When you take EQ1 off that list there really isn't much there. Still they are 2nd on my list. Even eq2 was better than anything Turbine put out.
Incorrect Verant was an offshoot of SoE online and was originaly called RedEye, here a little history lesson of SoE.
Sony Online Entertainment's history can be seen as starting with Sony Interactive Studios America (SISA), an internal game development studio of Sony that formed around 1995. In 1996, John Smedley was put in charge of SISA's development of an online role-playing video game that would evolve into the MMORPGEverQuest. Smedley hired programmers Brad McQuaid and Steve Clover who had come to Smedley's attention through their work on the singleplayer RPG Warwizard.
In April 1998, Sony Online Entertainment (SOE) was formed by merging parts of Sony Online Ventures with Sony Pictures Entertainment. Within a matter of months after this change, Sony Interactive Studios America was renamed 989 Studios.
Towards the end of 1998, 989 Studios shifted its strategy to making PlayStationconsole games only. The company's computer game/online development branch spun off, initially calling itself RedEye Interactive and then soon after Verant Interactive.
EverQuest launched with modest expectations from Sony on March 16, 1999 under its Verant Interactive brand and quickly became successful. Numbers continued rising at a steady rate until mid-2001 when growth slowed. As of 2004, Sony reported subscription numbers close to 450,000. In March 2000, Verant released EverQuest: The Ruins of Kunark, the first in a long list of expansions for EverQuest.
Not surprising that SoE is getting the most votes, kind sad though. Consider that SoE is the only company on the list who has really ever taken any risks in the genre and they may not have worked, but at least they are trying.
Aye SoE is one of my favorite developers atm because there willing to take chances, SoE seem to be hit and miss they either make a realy good game (Everquest 1 and 2, Champion on Norrath, Planet Side and even Free Realm) or they mess up and make a bad game/bad discision however most people remember the bad thing over the good so its no surprsing people vote for SoE.
Sony didn't make EQ1, Verant did. They just took it over then put out a lot of bad expansions. (Although their AA system was really good.) When you take EQ1 off that list there really isn't much there. Still they are 2nd on my list. Even eq2 was better than anything Turbine put out.
Incorrect Verant was an offshoot of SoE online and was originaly called RedEye, here a little history lesson of SoE.
Sony Online Entertainment's history can be seen as starting with Sony Interactive Studios America (SISA), an internal game development studio of Sony that formed around 1995. In 1996, John Smedley was put in charge of SISA's development of an online role-playing video game that would evolve into the MMORPGEverQuest. Smedley hired programmers Brad McQuaid and Steve Clover who had come to Smedley's attention through their work on the singleplayer RPG Warwizard.
In April 1998, Sony Online Entertainment (SOE) was formed by merging parts of Sony Online Ventures with Sony Pictures Entertainment. Within a matter of months after this change, Sony Interactive Studios America was renamed 989 Studios.
Towards the end of 1998, 989 Studios shifted its strategy to making PlayStationconsole games only. The company's computer game/online development branch spun off, initially calling itself RedEye Interactive and then soon after Verant Interactive.
EverQuest launched with modest expectations from Sony on March 16, 1999 under its Verant Interactive brand and quickly became successful. Numbers continued rising at a steady rate until mid-2001 when growth slowed. As of 2004, Sony reported subscription numbers close to 450,000. In March 2000, Verant released EverQuest: The Ruins of Kunark, the first in a long list of expansions for EverQuest.
My apologies then, i will give them credit for the game and 2 good expansions. Still will never forgive them for all the bad ones though and what the game has become.
Not surprising that SoE is getting the most votes, kind sad though. Consider that SoE is the only company on the list who has really ever taken any risks in the genre and they may not have worked, but at least they are trying.
Aye SoE is one of my favorite developers atm because there willing to take chances, SoE seem to be hit and miss they either make a realy good game (Everquest 1 and 2, Champion on Norrath, Planet Side and even Free Realm) or they mess up and make a bad game/bad discision however most people remember the bad thing over the good so its no surprsing people vote for SoE.
Sony didn't make EQ1, Verant did. They just took it over then put out a lot of bad expansions. (Although their AA system was really good.) When you take EQ1 off that list there really isn't much there. Still they are 2nd on my list. Even eq2 was better than anything Turbine put out.
Incorrect Verant was an offshoot of SoE online and was originaly called RedEye, here a little history lesson of SoE.
Sony Online Entertainment's history can be seen as starting with Sony Interactive Studios America (SISA), an internal game development studio of Sony that formed around 1995. In 1996, John Smedley was put in charge of SISA's development of an online role-playing video game that would evolve into the MMORPGEverQuest. Smedley hired programmers Brad McQuaid and Steve Clover who had come to Smedley's attention through their work on the singleplayer RPG Warwizard.
In April 1998, Sony Online Entertainment (SOE) was formed by merging parts of Sony Online Ventures with Sony Pictures Entertainment. Within a matter of months after this change, Sony Interactive Studios America was renamed 989 Studios.
Towards the end of 1998, 989 Studios shifted its strategy to making PlayStationconsole games only. The company's computer game/online development branch spun off, initially calling itself RedEye Interactive and then soon after Verant Interactive.
EverQuest launched with modest expectations from Sony on March 16, 1999 under its Verant Interactive brand and quickly became successful. Numbers continued rising at a steady rate until mid-2001 when growth slowed. As of 2004, Sony reported subscription numbers close to 450,000. In March 2000, Verant released EverQuest: The Ruins of Kunark, the first in a long list of expansions for EverQuest.
My apologies then, i will give them credit for the game and 2 good expansions. Still will never forgive them for all the bad ones though and what the game has become.
Game went a little down hill when PoK came out and went down hill majorly when they tried to copy WoW ill give you that.
Comments
I am surprised no one's hating on Blizzard in this topic.
Anyway I never understood what people meant by AAA developer. I thought that was a company with lots of money to invest in an MMO.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
Not surprisingly SOE is winning. I mean they haven't released a good MMO since EQ 1 so I guess they deserve that spot not to mention the SWG fiasco.
My gaming blog
Anyone who votes for bioware knows nothing about bad game companies, releasing a game that is not what you wanted is radicaly different then releasing a game that doesnt work, that they lie to you about and that they also steal your money.
Still would put Cryptic on the list becuase they had AAA releases atleast STO was supposed to be.
If it is financially successful, SoE
Bioware in its old form does not exist. It is wholey owned by EA.. And trust me EA is one of the worst thereby Bioware is in the same boat being an extension of its master..
Furthermore the poll isn't clearly defined, do you mean worst developer as in ethics (ie buying game companies, rebranding everything to their name, destroying their rep then moving on. Ie Origin-EA, EA-Mythic, Bioware-Mythic, not to mention making deals with indie developers then breaking yoru contract (/cough Bethesda's work on Madden) Or do you mean an actual poorly coded/managed product.
SOE might be guilty of the latter, But EA is guilty of both...
My vote for worst studio (and publisher) is EA..
I miss CCP on that list .........
Cast your vote: The importance of character customisation
Cryptic have been the worst a long time, even if I can´t say that I am 100% sure that it will stay that way, a lot of the problems were probably due their last owner Atari cheaping things up.
Champions online and Star trek online, no company on the list have messed up worst that that beside maybe SOE but SOE at least did Everquest which was good and EQ2 that was acceptable. Cryptics masteropiece is City of heroes that is playable at least but not enough to save them for my list.
you need to allow multiple selections.
AMD Phenum II x4 3.6Ghz 975 black edition
8 gig Ram
Nvidia GeForce GTX 760
City of Heroes/City of Villians make Cryptic a 'AAA' developer. That game made more than most other games combined. They also won many "Game of the Year' awards at the time of its release. Since then however Cryptic has been on a serious nose dive in both quality of game play and quality of content in every game they've built on the 'Craptic' Engine of theirs. They deserve to win this poll hands down as the absolulely worst 'AAA' developer ever. Needless to say I voted 'Other'.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
I voted blizzard solely because in my option they screwed up the mmorpg market (For 7 years) with WoW and now everyone making easier and easier MMO that walk you through the game on a very short leash, its only now that the MMORPG market is finaly starting to move forward again after that leap back that blizzard did.
Aye SoE is one of my favorite developers atm because there willing to take chances, SoE seem to be hit and miss they either make a realy good game (Everquest 1 and 2, Champion on Norrath, Planet Side and even Free Realm) or they mess up and make a bad game/bad discision however most people remember the bad thing over the good so its no surprsing people vote for SoE.
If there was a topic about the best Developers personaly i would vote Arenanet and SoE for atleast trying something different that remaking a similar version of World of Warcraft. I would rather a company try something new and fail that not trying at all and playing it safe, You dont advance in the genre if you dont do new things all you get is the same game over and over that may vary slightly.
What's the point of this?
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Sony didn't make EQ1, Verant did. They just took it over then put out a lot of bad expansions. (Although their AA system was really good.) When you take EQ1 off that list there really isn't much there. Still they are 2nd on my list. Even eq2 was better than anything Turbine put out.
Hands down BW.
I voted SOE as well. They ruin remarkable games (SWG) and cockblock others by putting them on life support (Vanguard). Cryptic comes in second for releasing shitty, half-assed money grabs for games.
Incorrect Verant was an offshoot of SoE online and was originaly called RedEye, here a little history lesson of SoE.
Sony Online Entertainment's history can be seen as starting with Sony Interactive Studios America (SISA), an internal game development studio of Sony that formed around 1995. In 1996, John Smedley was put in charge of SISA's development of an online role-playing video game that would evolve into the MMORPG EverQuest. Smedley hired programmers Brad McQuaid and Steve Clover who had come to Smedley's attention through their work on the singleplayer RPG Warwizard.
In April 1998, Sony Online Entertainment (SOE) was formed by merging parts of Sony Online Ventures with Sony Pictures Entertainment. Within a matter of months after this change, Sony Interactive Studios America was renamed 989 Studios.
Towards the end of 1998, 989 Studios shifted its strategy to making PlayStation console games only. The company's computer game/online development branch spun off, initially calling itself RedEye Interactive and then soon after Verant Interactive.
EverQuest launched with modest expectations from Sony on March 16, 1999 under its Verant Interactive brand and quickly became successful. Numbers continued rising at a steady rate until mid-2001 when growth slowed. As of 2004, Sony reported subscription numbers close to 450,000. In March 2000, Verant released EverQuest: The Ruins of Kunark, the first in a long list of expansions for EverQuest.
You forgot EA. EA > SoE to me in being bad.
My apologies then, i will give them credit for the game and 2 good expansions. Still will never forgive them for all the bad ones though and what the game has become.
Game went a little down hill when PoK came out and went down hill majorly when they tried to copy WoW ill give you that.