Warrior Within (WW for short) was indeed an odd one compared to the other two in tone. Edgy for edgyness’ sake.

Good point, but not fully accurate I’m afraid. It’s well established that the less costly product often has an advantage in sales because it’s the cheapest, irrespective of the value proposition.

“Edginess”
Looks like a “cool” character, as envisionned by checklists-addicted marketing people.

I’m interested to see which one of the new generation of consoles (Xbox Series S, PS% and the Switch revamped) will “pull a Wii” success by being the weakest/chaepest.

Why not both? (insert meme here)

The whole game strikes as trying HO SO VERY HARD at being “cool” in a 90's sort of way, with a 2010's cartoon flair.

Reminds me of the “buzzword bingo” strip of Dilbert comic (before Adams went off the deep end with his bizarre infatuation of Trump).

Go to nearly all highly technical professions conventions or conferences. The amounts of words almost nobody understands, except those in the know, spoken in the halls of those places is quite high.

I guess you can’t even read the article you comment on. So much bad faith it boggles the mind...

You about-face and total flip-flop on Apple being a monopoly but having a right to it to the stance that Apple is not if fact a monopoly based on an utterly mangled definition of monopoly is duly noted.

If you sign a contract with illegal, contradictory, sketchy or anti-consumer practice directives, then that contract or part thereof can be voided in a court of law, and subsequent plaintiffs can ask for compensations.

Having a crafted lawsuit is meaningless to explain your position, greivances and engage court procedures?

Listen to yourself. You just admitted Apple as a monopoly, which is illegal. It’s clear and shut. No amount of “I like Apple better” will change that.

Should have said ad-hominem. “Epic is bad, they have no standing. They make lot’s of money already, and don’t need more.” is a pretty inane thing to say in a court.

This is a non-sequitur and if their lawyers attempt this they will be laughed out of court.

If you refuse to abide a potentially illegal constraint, and can prove it, then you are in the right.

This is still a monopolistic practice that was a long time waiting for the right actor to bring them to court over.

Even bad actors have a point in some discussions.

Ho! the irony of a having a communist-backed entity the slap some sense in a good capitalism practice (I.E. not to allow monoplies is a rare point of convergence of about everybody involved in making capitalism work).

What Apple does with it’s store is in no way unique and that behavior is roundly anti-consumer on it’s face (the consumer here is the companies using the strore to sell apps).