Guess what? They did choose. They chose to review a major game release from a company currently experiencing severe issues. Mentioning those issues, and then reviewing the game.

...what game do you think this review is for, again?

The article is a review. It tells you what changed, and what didn’t, with the understanding that you have played the previous iteration of the game. The title tells you the conclusion of the review. A single paragraph is less than other outlets, like RPS, are giving the issue. If you are that bothered by a tiny…

He did. It’s Diablo 2, only shiny. Nothing more, nothing less. Only the networking options have changed a little, and that shift, to “always on,” is also mentioned. What more do you want, an extra sentence explaining further that the base game has been untouched aside from what was already mentioned?

The title is literally a TL;DR for the article. It states specifically what the game is, and makes no judgement call as to whether or not it’s a good thing. It is, in fact, anti-clickbait, as you already can tell what the article’s conclusion is just by looking at the title.

Their job is to review games. That’s what they did, reviewed the game. The review shows both what was changed and what was still the same, which is the point of a review of a remake. The article was made specifically to review the game and nothing else. If you think it’s to “bash Blizzard,” maybe try some reading…

Because it’s games news. That should be obvious to anybody who doesn’t use “woken flake click bait” seriously.

Did you read the article at all?

Did you read the article? It doesn’t bash on the developers of D2R or D2R itself at all.

Whether you like it or not, this game is news, and Kotaku is a games news blog. So they should cover it. You don’t have to like it, but you also don’t have to read it.

Did you forget that games being cheaper was supposed to be the draw for the Epic Game Store, too? No, the prices won’t change, and people won’t jump through hoops for an impulse purchase.

Because companies won’t be offering you a percentage off. They’ll pocket the difference. If you doubt that, look at the Epic store; despite taking a smaller cut than Steam, none of the games are cheaper. Any company that makes money off microtransactions isn’t going to do anything to slow your spending rate, and…

Two options, sure, which is why we have Android and iOS. Two options. And soon, Linux phones. Three options. The problem is that people don’t like Apple’s success, and are attacking them for being successful. Not for driving other people out; they don’t do that. They are just good at what they do, and other people…

That only applies to outside-app payments. In-app, they can point to outside-app payments or use Apple’s payment service.

The reason the point is being made is because of Epic’s constant argument that lower fees are better for consumers, and their constant weaponizing of that argument, whether it’s for direct purchases or for DLC/microtransaction content. Reducing fees for developers does not help consumers.

You’re not paying attention to what I’m saying. Lowering hosting fees does not reduce the cost of titles. Epic pulled a stunt (and broke their contract), but only in a way where they stood to turn a profit. And all the judge ruled was that Apple could not force people to not offer an off-app website for third party…

So, the 471 titles in the Epic store that are the same price as everywhere else are outweighed by the one time Epic deliberately breached a contract, executed code that they were not allowed to, and set a price where they got paid *even more* than they already were, in a grandstand ploy to provoke this very lawsuit?

No, they were blocked for breaching contract and doing so in a way that evaded Apple’s review process that’s intended to prevent malicious code executions.

No you are misunderstanding. You will still have to use Apple to buy/download the App as they own the store. However, when you want to spend $10 for a skin in Fortnite, or a game in Roblox, or a movie rental in Amazon when you are inside the app, there will be two buttons. One will say $10 (via Apple App Store) …

Honestly, this is the worst possible reading of the ruling. The only part of the ruling that went against Apple was preventing apps from pointing to off-app payment options. Everything else went Apple’s way, including Epic paying Apple and Epic continuing to be delisted from the app store. Epic has, effectively, lost.