I'm not arguing anything, I'm just stating these moves are what killed any chance the games above had. Overwatch is a much better package than both BattleBorn and LawBreakers. More charming? absolutely, better gameplay and more enjoyable modes? you betcha'. I just dont understand why they constantly employ this tactic to the point of delaying updates by a few days, like the Doomfist update. Updates roll out on what, a tuesday? and they pushed it to a thursday as that was LawBreakers open beta. I just dont understand this obviously deliberate move if they are so confident in their product (which they should be). Overwatch is allowed, and should have, competition, but they flat out kill any that oppose it. That's how it seems to me, maybe I'm waffling a little, and I've nothing against Blizzard, but I do dislike Activision.
I would respectfully submit that, yes, this is a bit of waffling, because the underlying premise is that this practice is unfair--that having a more successful product is inherently unfair.
For a hyperbolic example, that's rather like saying it's unfair for Michael Phelps to show up at the Olympics because he's too good.
If an _update_ to a game that was released a full year ago can kill off an entirely new game with a headline designer, that doesn't really seem to be a matter of fairness.
Not taking any sides here, but I'm confused by this logic. You're arguing that Blizzard killed off these other games by promoting their own game during the launches for the other two, correct? But that's just an argument that Blizzard killed them off by making a product that is inherently more appealing when placed directly in competition to those games, no?
That is, you're essentially saying Overwatch is somehow intrinsically irresistible so it's unfair to have to compete with it, unless I'm completely missing something in your argument.
My apologies if that comes off as confrontational, I'm just genuinely puzzled.