Boycotting ANY game companies?

What game companies/developers, if any, are you considering/thinking about BOYCOTTING on? And if you want to, please feel free to rant on those very and at the same time make up/come up with a list of YOUR top least favorite or even most hated game companies/developers for this VERY thread :wink:

for me it’d be CIG/RSI the company behind the star citizen pre-alpha*. its a crowdfunded scam thats raised over 130 million by using predatory marketing and having the bad habit of always moving the goal posts further back so they can get more money off saps. when that game fails, its gonna seriously hurt crowdfunding for gaming really bad and it will be remembered for doing so.

edit: its not even a game yet, stuck in pre-alpha for more than 4 years.

1 Like

Bethesda. If they want to bypass objective game reviewers and hand pick their own, then I can live without their games. The last thing I want is for other companies to look at what they’re doing and think it’s okay to follow suit.

For the people that say “don’t rely on game reviews” or “if you’re going to buy the game anyways, then reviews don’t matter,” I’d say this: Some people need reviews to help make a decision. Sorry, but that’s just a fact. Not everyone is 100% convinced that they’re going to purchase something, even if the coverage for the game has been positive leading up to that point.

Just as most people look at Amazon ratings and reviews before making a purchase, so too do some people look at the scores and read the reviews for a game. Sure, maybe you’ll get Skyrim. But maybe you’ll get Watch Dogs, a game that, for me, was an automatic, day one purchase because of how great it looked in the previews. Had I waited and read the reviews, I would’ve seen that I was getting a game that was more like a 6.5 or a 7; a GTA knock off with less going on in a relatively uninteresting world, and that the hacking option wasn’t nearly as innovative or fleshed out as Ubisoft made it seem.

Not to specifically knock Ubisoft here, but would people be okay with this if companies with more of a checkered past with consumers started eschewing objective reviewers? Do you want Electronic Arts or Activision doing this? How about indy developers that you’ve never heard of? How many No Man’s Sky buyers wish they’d seen the reviews before jumping in head first? Now imagine if they had been able to hand pick their own reviewers.

Oh, and for the people that just assume that reviewers are already bought and paid for because Game Informer is owned by Game Stop or because IGN is I don’t know, IGN, I’d ask that you put your tin foil hat away. I can read something and detect bias relatively well and I’m betting most gamers can too. I can also tell based on who the reviewer is whether or not I agree or disagree with them more often then not. Is it a perfect system? No, of course not. But I’ll gladly take what we have over any company hand picking their own reviewers. The fact that some people can’t see the inherent dangers in that, or where it could potentially lead utterly mystifies me.

1 Like

This whole “reviews” issue could be disscussed until death.

Most work this way(Gonna use Ubisoft as example):
Ubisoft pays you a lot of money for putting some Assassins creed advertisement in your webpage. When the game lauchs, your reviewer gives the game a low rating, a 6. Then, Ubisoft comes and says you: Change that into at least an 8, or you will not only woulnd’t get more money from advertisement, also you are going into our black list: No more closed events, no more early access, no more press copy for reviews…

And what can you do? If you are big, you could take some attention over this, and maybe win. But if you are a small website, you are doomed. If EA, Activision or Ubisoft puts you in the black list, you are screwed.

I could go for this topic for long, so I will stay on topic:

-Ubisoft(I had a funny discussion with @BigBadAndy about why I think Watch Dogs is one of the worst AAA ever made)
-Activision(nuff said)
-EA walks in a thin edge. I hate that they do lots of stuff which annoys me, but they publish some great games.

I “boycott” companies that never make games I like, I guess. I don’t really have any specific blacklist. I’m willing to buy anything as long as I generally hear it’s good and will offer a fun, worthwhile, and fair experience.

If any notable company would qualify, probably Activision.

So by this logic, every review that comes out on a site or in a magazine that has advertising is compromised because publishers can just say that they’ll pull their advertising and put them on a black list (no closed events, early access or review copies).

I have a few questions about this:

-How can Ubisoft go to, let’s say IGN, and tell them to change a review score that’s already been given? Or are you saying IGN submits their review to Ubisoft before publishing for approval? I’m asking because I don’t ever recall seeing a review score change after a game has been put out unless there were technical issues that were fixed. So if the IGN’s of the world are going to publishers with their reviews before publishing them, then how do we know this is happening?

-As far as pulling advertising… I mean, that’s a two way street, right? Ubisoft is pulling their ads from places where people, specifically gamers, can see them. Even with a bad review, wouldn’t that be cutting off their nose to spite their face?

Same goes with the black list idea. If you’re a publisher, don’t you want companies doing previews on your games to drum up excitement and interest? If a company’s game gets bad review scores all over the place, is it really in their best interest to blacklist twenty websites?

-Lastly, if I have reviewers that I trust, how does it benefit me if a publisher decides that the people I trust can’t get their reviews out until several weeks after the game has released, while reviewers I don’t know and have zero reason to trust, who just happen to be hand picked by the very publisher whose game is being reviewed, get their reviews out right away?

Regardless of how compromised companies might or might not be by advertising dollars, I’d still rather have people that I know share similar tastes, people that I decide to pick, rather than having the company that’s putting out the game make that decision for me.

Sorry, don’t mean to hijack the thread. I’m not buying Bethesda games. I’m not howling in to the wind about it, I’m just perfectly fine living without them. No problem.

@Dayv0, are there any companies you’re boycotting?

1 Like

meanwhile people are getting fleeced for buying .jpeg ships for more than $1,000 for a game that isnt out. some people have dropped well over $10,000 into a game that doesnt even exist and is vaporware with just tech demos. one guy even dropped over $30,000. the whole game review thing is a serious issue, but so is this lmao anyway

1 Like


I boycott Iron Galaxy because they are milking KI dry…Kappa

1 Like

The people behind DayZ and EA’s marketing division.

Of course yours is a serious issue. I didn’t mean to imply that it wasn’t. Did I do that somewhere in my posts?

1 Like

I don’t see myself realistically boycotting any particular company right now. Konami comes to mind but I doubt they’ll ever produce anything worth my time from this point onward, and their old games are mostly being sold on preowned discs and such.
Bethesda is getting insultingly complacent in its recent practices, but it remains to wait and see what they want to try to get past us. Square Enix can’t help but do stupid things to their new games, but they’ve been manageable up until now on their non-mobile games and are making good pc ports. I don’t buy anything from EA anyway.

Rather, I would boycott individual games such as Mankind Divided based on business practices, insulting ports, a lack of support or customer respect, and/or an emphasis on selling dlc and microtransactions. I don’t preorder, nor do I buy until I know the extent of these and whether a fix is already made. If they don’t treat me nice, I don’t touch them; I wouldn’t be able to enjoy them anyway with such irritations in the back of my mind.

I leave options open so I can still show appreciation for fun games with good business behaviour and customer respect, so that these practices won’t be later thrown out for more exploitative techniques in the name of sales.

Capcom is a good example - it’s made terrible changes and reworks to many series lately which are worthy of boycotts, but the Monster Hunter series remains full of good practices and gets my support. Free unique dlc missions which unlock new weapons and armour sets, no additional purchases at all, great localization, good multiplayer which can also be tackled solo, and a big chunk of single player offerings. To think these were once normal.

I will put you a example:
-Kane and Lynch scandal: One of the reviewers from Gamespot, Jeff Gerstmann, was fired after a bad review of that game, which was covering Gamespot site with all their publicity. Years later, it was confirmed that the publisher pressured Gamespot for this.

Maybe IGN or other big sites don’t care about this because this doesn’t happens to them, but smaller(yet popular) sites could have an issue here. Some spanish sites, like Vidaextra, had ex employees that spoke about how they were conditioned into speaking well about some games, or they wouldn’t get press copies. And that can kill blogs.

The review issues are not new. Meristation, a spanish site(a big one here), faced hordes of angry people because they put crazy notes in some titles and they had to tune them down.
-Assassins Creed 1 got a 10. After thousands of complains in their forums, they toned it down into 7
-Street fighter V got a 9. After several complains in their forums due bad online and lack of content, they downed it into 6.5
-Driveclub lauched with a 8-9, can’t remember. Don’t know if you recall how disastrous was it’s lauch, but after some time, they lowered it into 5.

There are more examples. My point is that the damage is already done. Thousands of people buy games because reviews says so. Yeah, it’s their fault, but the press should do a better job. Heck, they should DO THEIR JOB.

At the end, I blame both press and publishers, since they work in harmony. I worked 8 years in a videogames store, and we had “mistery shoppers” from several companies. I had one friend working as zone controller for Activision, and he told me how Activision imposed their publicity to some stores in order to recieve COD on time or allow them to sell the game sooner, or recieve it the launch day, so if someone skips the launch date, you coulnd’t put yours on sale.

This industry backstage is a really dark one

I’m not actively boycotting nobody, but I don’t like how Ubisoft and Activision makes videogames for several reasons.

Oh god, what have they done to AC, Prince of Persia and COD

Also, @TheNinjaOstrich, I don’t know if you wanna hear me speak about watchdogs, since I already achieved convencing people who liked it into hating it xD

As a gamer, I personaly don’t find any advantages to boycoting a game compagnie. If I like a game, I buy it, if not, I don’t buy it and I don’t care the slightest who’s behind it. But i can understand a more “moral” point of view wich i arguably lack.

1 Like

Is this common practice though?

I dunno, maybe it’s just my own ignorance (which is entirely possible), but I just don’t see this on American sites, or perhaps I just don’t notice it. Sure, I see people complaining about review scores all the time, that’s nothing new. But I don’t recall seeing companies then going back and lowering those scores.

I agree that the press should be independent and they shouldn’t allow companies to affect them in such a way. I’m also not naïve enough to think that there isn’t some level of contamination when it comes to publishers, sites, and favorable treatment.

But for me, I still tend match my own personal tastes to that of specific reviewers. If I trust what they’re putting out there and I agree with what they’re saying, then I’m more likely to trust their opinion in the future. Now, if that same reviewer starts putting out reviews that I don’t agree with or I think their scores are becoming way too high, then I have no problem with trying to find other reviewers.

But again, this is my choice and it should be my choice. I should be able to pick where I get my reviews from and who I trust. I don’t trust Bethesda or any other company to have my best interests at heart. I just don’t. I’ll take the media and their off-putting relationship with publishers over straight trusting the publishers themselves any day of the week, even if it’s debatable just how different those two groupings might be.

1 Like

This is just a garish example. There could be more less flamboyant, and some of them, we would’t ever know.[quote=“Iago407, post:15, topic:16431”]
I dunno, maybe it’s just my own ignorance (which is entirely possible), but I just don’t see this on American sites, or perhaps I just don’t notice it. Sure, I see people complaining about review scores all the time, that’s nothing new. But I don’t recall seeing companies then going back and lowering those scores.

Maybe you should look in another direction. Maybe is not websites, but bloggers and youtubers where you should look. Currently, youtubers have the power. They are the trusted reviewers. The big sites are “corrupted” and most people see them as this. But you could see a youtuber, agree with him, and then go with his opinion and trust him. And then, the publisher goes against him and start lawsuits because they are making bad reviews of their games, so they “bother” them. Jim Sterling had several of these.

Funny, even if they don’t let sites to review their games, Bethesda is one of the few companies which I trust. I haven’t get Dishonored 2 yet, but that’s because of money, not because I want to see reviews. In fact, I haven’t see any.

If a company makes GOOD games, I trust them. I trust Bethesda, because they gave me hundred of hours of enjoyment. Same goes for Bioware, among others

I don’t trust Activision or Ubisoft, because they made every COD since MW2, or Ubisoft, for what they have done to AC, POP, or their politics with games like Watchdogs

1 Like

So if we don’t know, we should just assume the worst?

Well, what “most people” see aside, I’ve been looking at many of the larger sites for years and haven’t had any real problems, but that’s just me. Sure, there are some examples here and there where I find what one could generously describe as moral ambiguities, but a lot of what I see some consumers ranting and raving about doesn’t really bother me as much. In fact, I feel a tad safer looking at bigger sites that can afford to tell the Activisions of the world to take a walk if they don’t like the score for a particular game.

I do however look at a lot of youtube reviews on games if I’m unsure and I try to read reviews at both ends of the spectrum to see if what bothers them would bother me, or if what I like might match what they like, etc. I do try to get a full picture, which is why any company saying “forget the full picture, just look at the picture we want you to look at” is so galling to me.

Oh I think Bethesda makes great games for the most part. But for me, that doesn’t factor in. Their goal is to make a profit just like any other business. So what I care about is the fact that they want to decide for me where I can get review information of their products on launch day. I care that other companies, like an Activision or a Ubisoft might look at what they’re doing and think it’s a good idea. I think they’re setting a terrible precedent, and I’d rather go without their games than support that precedent financially.

Can’t change my mind, Got a hat and Pre-Ordered both Games :joy:

1 Like

It’s not “assume the worst”, its more a “be prepared” scenario.

I understand, and agree.

But at the end, IMO it doesn’t care. If all of them take this way, maybe they will sell less the first day, but they will recover it the second week.

I have bigger issues with Capcom and their “sneaky spyware” fiasco

1 Like



1 Like