Nintendo has published many strinkers see metacritic...1 game is not going to tarnish a publisher that much.

The single player only needs to be good enough to get people interested in multiplayer

It's disrespectful to not publish it. How will you convince other studio's to partner with you, knowing that they Big N might not even fulfill their end of the bargain.

You've committed to funding the game, so it is only logical that you support it to the very end. Even if you got a shitty product on your hands

If it's a bad game, then whatever. I'm sure someone out there will like it and there are probably redeeming qualities in regards to it.

Like I've said before, I think the game might end up as one of those games with a cult following.

We survived Sonic Boom. We'll survive this.

- You wanna know what's more disrespectful? When said studio does such a poor job and put out a terrible final product, instead of making the game good. This has been in development for at least 3 years, maybe even longer, there's no excuse as to why this game is the way it is. If the developers had actually made the game good or somewhat decent, we wouldn't have this problem to begin with now would we?
-Nintendo and Platinum Games appear to have a very close relationship, and a big part of that is because unlike Valhalla, Platinum actually delivered in the clutch in crunch time when Nintendo passed them the ball to make something good happen, and that something good was Bayonetta 2, so affinity is high between both parties, so much so that Nintendo is trusting Platinum with one of their own IPs (Star Fox Zero)
When it comes to Nintendo and 2nd/3rd party developers, if you put in as much effort and energy to making your game the best it can be (Bayonetta 2, Bravely Default, Monster Hunter,) as much as they do, they trust you, and they'll keep their end of the deal.
If you half ass it, and just don't care and put out a bad/terrible game (This game, Sonic Boom), they don't, and they'll cut your ties. They want partners who are just as passionate about making each game the best it can possibly be as they are.

- No it's not. That money was spent on the game because they believed the studio was capable of putting out a good game, and they let them down. So it's money wasted. They'll make that money back some other way, but at that point, their is no point in trying to ride on a dead horse, when you could look for another one

Its not realy a controversy, the game has been in development hell for long and aparently sucks real bad.

Simple, dont make a stinking pile of poo. If youre getting Nints to fund and advertise your game you have to at least make it decent, its not liek youre having financial issues and not getting the word about your game out there. If the dev completly botches the thing than I see as the right of the publisher to pass on it, afterall its theyre money funding it anyway.

No idea how the game plays, from what I saw at the last E3, it looked average with a few quirks. Probably still could profitable, it isn't like NoA puts out commercials for EVERY game they put out, they could easily have dropped this into the waters of a later summer release before Madden hit and gotten some sales. If the multiplayer is nice enough, it would have probably been helped by Splatoon's success and might have been a decent game. Call of Duty and Destiny it would not be but a solid game can help build a audience better then no game at all.

Especially given the fact that they aren't going to provide Star Fox a decent multiplayer option like the N64 game had, probably due to rushing it out to take the spot of Zelda Wii U as this year's prize Nintendo game.

Agreed. The same goes to The Evil Within imo.

More games is always good for a console that really needs them, but since I don't really like FPS, I'm indifferent on this issue