To clarify, the British complaint about the streaming market is almost guaranteed to be the cause of this, but nothing in that article claims exclusive streaming rights. Ubisoft will be guaranteed a right to stream the games (on seemingly any platform but maybe mobile), but the language used any time the article quotes the blog post seems to imply that they'll still be able to also offer them themselves or license them elsewhere. Their point of emphasis is that it prevents Microsoft from exclusivity of streaming rights, not that Microsoft still doesn't have them or can't also license them to others. (It also mentions Microsoft abiding by other existing rights deals).
I don't think that's a bad thing. A big part of effective software development is building things in a way they can be re-used, then adapting that re-use to your use case. You don't want to re-invent the wheel every time.
With UX specifically, user expectations also play a bigger role, and you need to be careful with how and when you violate expectations. There's a reason most FPS games have settled on the same control scheme. Unless you have a very good reason for a change, it detracts from the user experience instead of improving it.
There are issues with the fact that the games are done so fast that none really have their own soul, but shared core UX (that's pretty comparable to most other similar games) is reasonable. It's the fact that it's not as good as it should be (mostly by shoe-horning in all the ads for shitty monetization) that's the issue.
As far as I'm concerned they do. But my opinion doesn't decide the rating of a game any more than yours that's it's supposedly a better game than bad rats.
It's a product of everyone who votes giving their opinion, and the entire steam userbase has come to the consensus that Overwatch 2 is a particularly egregious example of it.
It cannot possibly be a review bomb when the reviews are legitimate opinions based on what the game is.
A review bomb is when people start jumping down the game's throat with negative reviews for shit unrelated/peripheral to the game. If they're triggered by the actual core design choices of the game it isn't a review bomb.
These reviews are because the game is a money grubbing downgrade from the game people bought and had taken away from them, and this is the first opportunity they had to publish a review on a storefront. The motivation being the actual game means it can't be a review bomb.
You understand that the game isn't new, just new to Steam, right? Having zero hours on Steam doesn't mean anything when they forced all the people who genuinely wanted to play it to figure out that it was dogshit on their own launcher first.