Show me something that says the agreement was limited in nature righty. You can not do it. Therefore one has to interpret the information.
Like I said, you can interpret it any way you like but you provide nothing that shows it was limited even though you claim it was.
You are 100% able to determine the information to mean whatever you want.
Again, I do not see how you are really making a point by suggesting the data means something yet providing nothing to back it up while demanding somebody else abck up what they believe the data means.
Do you have anything to suggest the agreement was not national? Yes or No?
Because there is nothing written that says WalMart was limiting sales to a set number of stres, THe article clearly says they refused to remove them and stated they would would continue to sell them where there was demand.
Pretty straighforward to me. If there demand at any WalMart the games would be sold there and unless you can provide something that states different then I do not see how you can effectively state I am wrong and you are right.
Bottom line is that it comes down to interpretation of the information and then an opinioin based on that information. So determining somebody else is wrong without proving you are right is pretty ignorant.
I am saying that my opinion is that the agreement was national in nature based on the number of retail locations Troy stated were carrying the games and due to the wording in the article about WalMart.
Again, what is your point exactly? Bring up information that you can not even back up and then demand soembody else provide the proof for you? Show me where there was a limtied release by WalMart and I will take a look at it. If not then you interpret the data how you see fit and I will interpret it how I see fit.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
