5 ms·

>The court ruling even agrees with Microsoft in theory about the Nintendo Switch being part of the console market, but also accepts the FTC can reasonably claim

by htrp 3y ago

>The court ruling even agrees with Microsoft in theory about the Nintendo Switch being part of the console market, but also accepts the FTC can reasonably claim it’s not. How is the Switch not a console?

chrisoverzero 3y ago
It’s portable.
- addisonl 3y ago
  A portable console.
  - kiwijamo 3y ago
    So you'd put the Gameboy for example on par with the PlayStation? Despite one being portable and the other not?
    - AmericanChopper 3y ago
      The portability doesn’t matter. Nintendo operates in a different market segment because of the hardware specs, and games they support. If you want to play the latest Call of Duty, Halo, God of War, Elden Ring… then Sony and Microsoft are competing for your business (sometimes with exclusive contracts), Nintendo is not. Their consoles wouldn’t be able to support those games.
      - vlozko 3y ago
        Call of Duty will be available for Switch under Microsoft. Halo and God of War are platform exclusives. But so are Tears of the Kingdom and various Mario titles. Elden Ring is the only game listed that's not available for Switch but is on both others. Even then, there are a ton of games that are available across all platforms, including some AAA ones: Mortal Kombat 11 The Witcher 3 Assassins's Creed (multiple) Skyrim Resident Evil (multiple) Monster Hunter Rise Overwatch 2 etc...
        AmericanChopper 3y ago
        The Switch runs plenty of previous generation games, because it’s capable of supporting them. The Switch wouldn’t support MW 2, and Microsoft have not announced any plans to release that game, or any upcoming CoD game on it. The reason Microsoft and Sony sign exclusive deal is mostly the keep games off each others platforms. Graphics-intensive “AAA” games aren’t going to run on the switch. Nintendo undeniably operates in a distinct segment, even if it’s capable of supporting some limited amount of overlap with the other vendors.
        vlozko 3y ago
        > Microsoft have not announced any plans to release that game, or any upcoming CoD game on it. There’s a plethora of articles stating the exact opposite, such as this one: https://afkgaming.com/esports/guide/is-call-of-duty-coming-to-nintendo-switch-microsoft-confirms-official-release https://afkgaming.com/esports/guide/is-call-of-duty-coming-t... It’s something MS has been saying numerous times, including in the FTC court case. The number of games that are exclusive to a platform that are paid to be that way is actually quite small. Almost all platform exclusives come from companies that are subsidiaries of their respective platform company (343 Studios, Naughty Dog, etc). The argument of graphic capabilities as something that defines the Switch to be in a different market that’s that of Sony/MS is a straw man argument, IMO. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere in these comments, it’s still competing for peoples’ video game time.
        AmericanChopper 3y ago
        Sorry buddy, you’ve fallen for fake news. Microsoft has said they’ll bring it to Nintendo, not the Switch, and the timeframe they’ve announced for this is sometime in the next 10 years. Most non-tabloid commentators seem to think this means it will either be delivered by a streaming service, or to a yet-to-be announced new console. In any case, if it happens it will have to be accompanied by a shift in Nintendo’s position in the market. > As I’ve mentioned elsewhere in these comments, it’s still competing for peoples’ video game time. Penguin and Scholastic are both competing for peoples book reading time, yet they quite clearly compete in different market segments. Your argument is contrived and ignores the fact that consumers understand how these products are differentiated to appeal to different preferences.
    - addisonl 3y ago
      Strawman (gameboy hasn’t been a thing for a decade) but looking past your fallacy I sure do: plenty of kids only get one or the other for Christmas.
      - kipchak 3y ago
        Plenty of kids might have also got either a bicycle or a Gameboy for Christmas but I'm not sure this makes them comparable categories.
        addisonl 3y ago
        Ehh simple example to explain the court’s decision—to the average consumer they are most definitely competing devices.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      If they got the same games, sure. Activision doesn't publish for Switch that much, but most major studios will at least consider a Switch port.
- LegitShady 3y ago
  it can also be docked and work on your tv.
HWR_14 3y ago
According to the FTC: > The FTC insists the Nintendo Switch’s pricing, performance, and content make it an improper substitute at least for purposes of its preliminary injunction motion I have to kinda agree with the FTC. I consider the Switch to be a very different device than the XBox/PS with different uses as far as the gaming experience I expect. The XBox or PS, on the other hand, I expect to have similar experiences. As I understand it, but the rest of this is based on skimming the ruling, the judge has to take into account whether the merger will help or hinder customers. MS said "Call of Duty isn't even on all the consoles now, it's just on Playstation and XBox. Let the merger go through and we will port it to the Switch. See how we don't play favorites for our console.". The FTC's response was "there isn't real market for console players of games like COD released on Switch, the Switch isn't a competitor to the XBox for this game"
CivBase 3y ago
It is. The court is basically saying here "We'll accept your argument that the Switch isn't in the same market because it doesn't matter. You're wrong either way." They do this again later on in regards to the FTC's arguments that cloud gaming and multi-game subscription services are functionally separate markets.

by htrp 3y ago

chrisoverzero 3y ago

It’s portable.

addisonl 3y ago
A portable console.
- kiwijamo 3y ago
  So you'd put the Gameboy for example on par with the PlayStation? Despite one being portable and the other not?
  - AmericanChopper 3y ago
    The portability doesn’t matter. Nintendo operates in a different market segment because of the hardware specs, and games they support. If you want to play the latest Call of Duty, Halo, God of War, Elden Ring… then Sony and Microsoft are competing for your business (sometimes with exclusive contracts), Nintendo is not. Their consoles wouldn’t be able to support those games.
    - vlozko 3y ago
      Call of Duty will be available for Switch under Microsoft. Halo and God of War are platform exclusives. But so are Tears of the Kingdom and various Mario titles. Elden Ring is the only game listed that's not available for Switch but is on both others. Even then, there are a ton of games that are available across all platforms, including some AAA ones: Mortal Kombat 11 The Witcher 3 Assassins's Creed (multiple) Skyrim Resident Evil (multiple) Monster Hunter Rise Overwatch 2 etc...
      - AmericanChopper 3y ago
        The Switch runs plenty of previous generation games, because it’s capable of supporting them. The Switch wouldn’t support MW 2, and Microsoft have not announced any plans to release that game, or any upcoming CoD game on it. The reason Microsoft and Sony sign exclusive deal is mostly the keep games off each others platforms. Graphics-intensive “AAA” games aren’t going to run on the switch. Nintendo undeniably operates in a distinct segment, even if it’s capable of supporting some limited amount of overlap with the other vendors.
        vlozko 3y ago
        > Microsoft have not announced any plans to release that game, or any upcoming CoD game on it. There’s a plethora of articles stating the exact opposite, such as this one: https://afkgaming.com/esports/guide/is-call-of-duty-coming-to-nintendo-switch-microsoft-confirms-official-release https://afkgaming.com/esports/guide/is-call-of-duty-coming-t... It’s something MS has been saying numerous times, including in the FTC court case. The number of games that are exclusive to a platform that are paid to be that way is actually quite small. Almost all platform exclusives come from companies that are subsidiaries of their respective platform company (343 Studios, Naughty Dog, etc). The argument of graphic capabilities as something that defines the Switch to be in a different market that’s that of Sony/MS is a straw man argument, IMO. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere in these comments, it’s still competing for peoples’ video game time.
        AmericanChopper 3y ago
        Sorry buddy, you’ve fallen for fake news. Microsoft has said they’ll bring it to Nintendo, not the Switch, and the timeframe they’ve announced for this is sometime in the next 10 years. Most non-tabloid commentators seem to think this means it will either be delivered by a streaming service, or to a yet-to-be announced new console. In any case, if it happens it will have to be accompanied by a shift in Nintendo’s position in the market. > As I’ve mentioned elsewhere in these comments, it’s still competing for peoples’ video game time. Penguin and Scholastic are both competing for peoples book reading time, yet they quite clearly compete in different market segments. Your argument is contrived and ignores the fact that consumers understand how these products are differentiated to appeal to different preferences.
  - addisonl 3y ago
    Strawman (gameboy hasn’t been a thing for a decade) but looking past your fallacy I sure do: plenty of kids only get one or the other for Christmas.
    - kipchak 3y ago
      Plenty of kids might have also got either a bicycle or a Gameboy for Christmas but I'm not sure this makes them comparable categories.
      - addisonl 3y ago
        Ehh simple example to explain the court’s decision—to the average consumer they are most definitely competing devices.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    If they got the same games, sure. Activision doesn't publish for Switch that much, but most major studios will at least consider a Switch port.
LegitShady 3y ago
it can also be docked and work on your tv.

HWR_14 3y ago

According to the FTC: > The FTC insists the Nintendo Switch’s pricing, performance, and content make it an improper substitute at least for purposes of its preliminary injunction motion I have to kinda agree with the FTC. I consider the Switch to be a very different device than the XBox/PS with different uses as far as the gaming experience I expect. The XBox or PS, on the other hand, I expect to have similar experiences. As I understand it, but the rest of this is based on skimming the ruling, the judge has to take into account whether the merger will help or hinder customers. MS said "Call of Duty isn't even on all the consoles now, it's just on Playstation and XBox. Let the merger go through and we will port it to the Switch. See how we don't play favorites for our console.". The FTC's response was "there isn't real market for console players of games like COD released on Switch, the Switch isn't a competitor to the XBox for this game"

CivBase 3y ago

It is. The court is basically saying here "We'll accept your argument that the Switch isn't in the same market because it doesn't matter. You're wrong either way." They do this again later on in regards to the FTC's arguments that cloud gaming and multi-game subscription services are functionally separate markets.