I'm surprised that anyone still does the gimmick covers.
Didn't comics learn anything from the 90s?
Let's compare the two, shall we?
The 1990s:
Rampant companywide crossovers promising to change everything, and not delivering.
Marvel releasing dozens of X-overs that only led into the next X-over, rarely advancing any characters or stories.
Stupid variant covers.
****house artists like Rob Liefeld enjoying superstar status, even though everyone who used to love him will later jump on a bandwagon and claim they never did.
Endless gimmicks over hero deaths or pseudo-deaths, notably Superman and Batman, but not limited to them.
******ed indie comics being treated like the new ****in' business just because they don't have MARVEL or DC on the cover.
The 2000s:
Rampant companywide crossovers promising to change everything, and not delivering.
Marvel releasing dozens of X-overs that only lead into the next X-over, rarely advancing any characters or stories.
Stupid variant covers.
****house artists like whoever's the guy doing The Flash gaining enough credence to threaten to become the dominant style, even though everyone who used to love that style will later jump on a bandwagon and claim they never did.
Endless gimmicks over hero deaths or pseudo-deaths, notably Captain America and almost the entirety of the JLI and Young Justice*, but not limited to them.
******ed indie comics being treated like the new ****in' business just because they don't have MARVEL or DC on the cover.
No, doesn't look like comics learned much at all.
*OK, comics learned that any superteam from the 1990s must die.