I sort of agree. There should be certain limitations to larger companies, for sure. Perhaps a different site branch or something as well, if they're allowed.

You make a fair point, but at the same time, I can't help but feel that no amount of "Kick-start the next HALO/MARIO/UNCHARTED/COD today, folks!" from big-name companies, could ever overshadow the existential significance of games like Cryamore, Yooka-Laylee, or Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night.

I'd even go so far as to say that if the new Zelda was something that was born of kick-starter, it still wouldn't overshadow stuff like those games to the point where people would forget about them.

I guess, in my opinion, what it comes down to, on a kick-starter project, is not the name attached to the game, but the quality of the game itself.

With a game that's being internally funded by a big name console maker or publisher, they can just make the game however they like, show off a few clips or demo a short bit of their game at E3 or something, and get a lot of attention for that particular showing, but after that they aren't really required to show much behind how the game's being done while they're doing it, let alone ask for their consumer's opinion of what they want added or changed.

With kick-starter titles, however, there's a larger burden-of-proof and a need for frequent updates and insider looks, because the consumers have suddenly become not just consumers, but a part of the very life-blood of the project right from the ground level of its finances.
They're putting up a pledge before the game is even fully made, and helping to decide what is and is not okay with it. [In most cases, at least. Shame about Mighty...]
They aren't just waiting while the devs make the game and then buying when it comes out; the consumers are actively participating in its creation, funding it from the start and helping to provide feedback on features within the game itself so that changes can be made and concepts can be introduced.

Kick-starter is a whole different ball game to ordinary development.
And that's something that a lot of big-name developers might not be familiar with, which is why I sort of agree with you when you say that they shouldn't be there, but it could also be looked at as a sort of "tempering ground" for these big names, as well.
They're so used to doing things their own way that maybe, just maybe, starting a kick-starter project or two and experiencing the criticism and involved nature inherent to kick-starter projects throughout the entirety of said projects, instead of just at the end after the game is done and reviews are launching, might just humble some of them in the end.
It might even make them appreciate the varied mindsets of their consumers more, too, which could, in turn, lead to a rise in quality for future titles that are just funded internally rather than kick-started.

It's a really interesting thing to think about no matter which way you go about it, though.^_^

Shovel Knight, Grim Dawn, Pillars of Eternity, Wasteland 2, Elite: Dangerous, Divinity: Original Sin 2, Shadowrun Returns.

All those chump games...

How about we stop dealing in absolutes and instead deal in the fact that everything has its grey areas, has its good and bad elements?

What is the problem with taking away risk? They won't even consider some franchises thanks to risk, if we take that away at least we have a shot at getting something we want.

These declines are on the back of extra revenue received from releasing games like Forza horizon 5 on PlayStation. So I’m being sarcastic here when I said they should go back to exclusives. Killing off a revenue stream from Ps5 sales will only make things worse