I got an axe throwing game (plastic axes, so reasonably safe, but surprisingly fun). I would rather the axes weigh a little more, but as is it means it can be put out with other lawn games when families come over without being nervous about kids.
It's a 2D platformer. Technology is no longer the limitation.
That's the reason the value proposition is so bad, too. It's not that there's anything inherently wrong with any of the 2D Mario (or the rest of their 2d side scroller catalogue). It's that they're charging full AAA game price for content any indie can match at everything but the specific IP (and many do better).
Some of their ideology helps their games last the test of time reasonably well, and they're the biggest publisher that's so heavy in 2D side scrolling stuff, but the reality is that it's now so easy for a solo dev to publish in an extremely polished format that there's very little they could do that would justify their price point.
So, on my (Android) ereader, I use einkbro which is a browser that will save pages to epub, then can be used and organized with most reader software. You can also combine multiple web pages as chapters to the same book pretty trivially.
I don't have a suggestion that perfectly fits your question as asked, but figured I'd suggest it anyways because it serves a relatively similar goal for me.
I'm saying they are probably being charged some portion of website sales specifically by the vendor of the web service provider. Which realistically makes sense, because regular online retail already almost always takes a percentage and there are significantly stronger regulatory requirements around anything medical.
I hate this. I'd be perfectly fine with network bullshit if it was a universal standardized profile so it actually worked (and I could build a programmable physical remote for it) . But the App Store is flooded with "android TV remotes" that maybe support one specific obscure (unlabeled) TV. I've never found one that works for anything I've owned.
Excluding some of the smaller point and shoots, which are still more volume than most phones, DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras are way bigger than phones for a reason. It's because that's what it takes to take actual high quality pictures without cheating heavily with processing.
I really doubt that. Computational photography is only as good as it is because of how heavily it processes all sorts of data that can't make it into the jpeg that gets spit out.
I would love to see what an Apple camera with the hardware they leverage on iPhone, but a full frame sensor and real lens could do, because what they manage to pull out of the trash ass input is impressive. But it's already processed to absolute hell. There's nothing left for further passes to pull out.