How's that for a concept ? - the catalog of untrusted publishers

[Tom]

So i had this idea in mind, the idea of a perfect and compact list of untrusted in various spheres publishers.
And i built this concept demo using visual editing and free hosting.
I think it would be cool to have such list integrated within the Exclusively Games.

What do you guys think ?
https://gamersboycott.wixsite.com/list
(i had the same idea for the catalog of shill media resources, but i thought it'd be too much )

[Tom]

Thank you guys for all the valuable criticism and input !!
Now we have the concept that, in my opinion, reflects your vision on this,
suggested by the Goat

https://www.exclusivelygames.com/for...h-feature-list
Check this out !

I think for now we can lock this thread !

[Zaiven]

Maybe instead we should think of making a list of the publisher and highlight their practices. like how often said publisher rely on micro transactions and if there are what's the price of the dlc, the price of their games, is it a bugged mess from the start, what type of ads they run. Like instead of doing it from a negative standpoint... just list what each publisher do. As an example Paradox makes good games that often get discounted on steam but be prepare to be DLCed the shit out off. So a list that kind of neutral that anyone who look at it can make their own mind if they want to buy games from said publisher. I don't know if it made sense kinda hard for me to explain in English. Kind of like a consumer guide but instead of stuff, it's about publishers...

I got to say, I agree on this point. It's pretty much what I was gonna post. Both a pure "good" and pure "bad" publisher list is too subjective for my taste to be honest, but we can keep track of things that some companies do well and some places where they could use improvement. That way it's also presented in a more deplomatic manner, this is what we generally enjoy and this is what we believe could be done better. Instead of X is bad and should feel bad!

[aileron]

Hmm... Definitely turn it around to a list of trustworthy publishers, if you do it at all. I still think it would get political.

[Damian Cunliffe]

I definitely like the idea of a list of trustworthy pubs/devs. It's more positive.

[ifnir]

It may be easier to put together a list of publishers to support than a list of publishers to boycott, seeing as the latter is, at this point, almost everyone

Was about to write this, but I agreed. I think we should weight more being positive and commend those developers, writers and publisher who does a good job. But isn't that the point of the upcoming review section of this site?

[Black Lotus]

Maybe instead we should think of making a list of the publisher and highlight their practices. like how often said publisher rely on micro transactions and if there are what's the price of the dlc, the price of their games, is it a bugged mess from the start, what type of ads they run. Like instead of doing it from a negative standpoint... just list what each publisher do. As an example Paradox makes good games that often get discounted on steam but be prepare to be DLCed the shit out off. So a list that kind of neutral that anyone who look at it can make their own mind if they want to buy games from said publisher. I don't know if it made sense kinda hard for me to explain in English. Kind of like a consumer guide but instead of stuff, it's about publishers...

[Forge]

All game publishers are untrustworthy. They only care about metascores and money. Some are just more blatant and transparent in their tactics and practices
Games should be taken like people, as individuals based on their own positive and negatives merits.

If you want to "score" publishers and developers, have a category in the games review section where you can look at just publishers (and/or developers), the scores for every game that's been rated here, and get an average.

[Temuldjin]

We all need to keep in mind that other sites, and even some developers/publishers, will have an instant dislike for our website here. If we were to have a list of "untrustworthy developers/publishers" then those people can simply point to our site and say "See? Just a bunch of toxic angry gamers".

At which point we point to the exact links that document why those publishers or developers are in the "untrustworthy" Category.

the untrustworthy and unethical publishers won't stop being that, and you better believe they will get unethical journalists to write smear/hit peaces towards this site and it's users, all we can do is prove that we are not "just toxic gamers" but gamers that are sick and tired of liars and shady corporations and we can prove our claims, where their claims are nothing but lies, lies that can be proven to be untrue. (another reason why they should be placed in the "untrustworthy" category)

[Damian Cunliffe]

We all need to keep in mind that other sites, and even some developers/publishers, will have an instant dislike for our website here. If we were to have a list of "untrustworthy developers/publishers" then those people can simply point to our site and say "See? Just a bunch of toxic angry gamers".

I completely understand the point - some developers ARE untrustworthy. I have my own personal list. But if we make an "Official EXG untrustworthy developers" list we'd really just be shooting ourselves in the foot before the race has even started.

I think we should just review each game as it comes. If it has despicable microtransactions/lootbox/DLC policies then you put that in the review in a way that lets the reader know what they're in for if they buy it.

[Temuldjin]

I personally think it's a really good idea. (if it can be done with sources and any rating be proven to be factually correct) we shouldn't care about how the unethical publishers or unethical journalists with try and smear us, because it's guarantied they will do it anyway, so might as well prove to anyone who is interested what our actually grievances are with them and why.

as long as it's user generated and not affiliated with any staff from here it should be fine, right?

[LiamC]

Tom;

While I like parts of your concept, I think the execution needs revision. This site is about games, that will naturally include reviews, some of which are very subjective and can become highly opinionated. Your current idea doesn't address that. I also agree with Valkenr that a negative forward approach will not serve this community well in the long run. If your concept had a list of key features common to the type of game being rated and included a sliding rating scale 1-10, 1-100? Then various members could rate the specific game on merit. All of a publisher’s rated games could then be averaged out and Players can make their own informed judgement about a particular game or its publisher.

[Spect3r]

Tom You are right, rocksteady not the publisher, my bad.

I like the idea of a dynamic rating with users input, that may be the fairest way to go.

[Tom]

Spect3r There are no set criterias right now, only general idea, since it's just a little sketch and another purpouse of this thread was to check what criterias users would want to be there etc.

Rocksteady is not a publisher, WB is.
And it's the publisher who often forces unfinished product into the stores.

I personally think it would be right to have a dynamic system based on users' input, that makes dynamic rating possible, so the publisher can be in the "trusted" category again, when the users decide. But implementing that will be not particularly easy.

[Spect3r]

Tom Ok, lets talk about microtransactions:
People complained like hell about the microtransactions in the last Assassins Creed. I played the entire game, killed all the cultists, did Atlantida part, etc so pretty much 100% of the game and not once i felt like i had to buy anything, not only that but i dont even think i saw the microtransactions menu.

Regarding bugs: I agree with you on that one, but then again how many times they have to mess up before they are considered a bad publishers?
Batman Arkham Knight for example was a mess on the PC, so how many times more will Rocksteady have to mess up to be considered a bad publisher?
And with Spider Man basically having no bugs, does the "bad publishers counter" resets?

Im just trying to understand the criteria to see if there is a non subjective way to judge these things.