Zenimax was a big publisher too. I'm pretty sure they are aware other publishers exist but those publishers are known as the "big 4" much like any other sector like banking, accounting, insurance has them.
Sure they also put out android games too but how many people debate between buying a galaxy tab or a PS5?
In the countless game sales split threads we have. How many game sales threads has a Switch split usually? Be honest.
Topher I went back to old post, and found a nice post.
Bethesda to be purchased
Bethesda are struggling financially and will be put up for sale shortly.www.neogaf.com
We even had the prediction on who will buy them.
@Golgo 13
That is what I call a power move.lol....the OP be like....
Not touching this one. But you can have no consolidation of the market and still not allow foreign bodies to buy up the largest American companies at the same time.
So you'll focus on one statement over another then. Neither made any promises. If the FTC or any regulator is going to doubt MS will honor commits or pledges to them like, I dunno, a pledge to make CoD available on other platforms or the union stuff they should be able to easily show MS has been a bad actor in this space and cannot be bargained with. There is no need to try and impugn the company's honesty obliquely. Present an actual case of them breaking a contract or pledge. Then you can acuse them of lying all day.
This is fascinating on many levels because people here claim the XSS isn't a current generation console at all. How could it be competitive with the Switch if Nintendo isn't a competitor? The Xbox competes with Nintendo on price and Sony on performance. It shows how silly removing a major player from the market to sue is.Apparently the Series S is a threat to Switch. They even mentioned the "console war".
Theres no way people believe they will win this case.
The latest NPD thread had many laughing that Xbox was in 3rd place. I was certain that they can't be in third because there are only two competitors? What could that third device be? It's so strange...
The whole reason the ZeniMax deal was brought up was to argue that somehow MS is not trustworthy. They are a bad actor. Show where they actually broke a contract or pledge to a regulatory body or company in this space. Do that and you can easily ignore any remedies they present.
Many people here called MS liars. What is being presented by the FTC is that MS is a bad actor and is being deceptive. Prove that claim. Show them breaking contracts and lying to regulators. That is what will be useful in court.
And a distinction that PlayStation has VR and Switch mobile mode and Xbox has day one games with Game pass and two different consoles with different power levels and prices. It's like every competitor in this space has different features to intice people to buy. If you look at the latest NPD I didn't see much representation from Xbox at all. Maybe MS is the one who should be excluded and only Nintendo and Sony the oldest companies in this space should count. You can define a market as narrowly as you want doesn't make it logical or reasonable.
You've clearly completely misunderstood what was said. When we get the countless game sale split threads for the big third party releases. How often does it include Switch?
It's not arbitrary at all. It's intentional legal posturing. "High quality console" has never been a thing. The definition of "high quality" is too abstract and the FTC is going to have to produce a concrete definition if they're going to make it stick.
High performance is also abstract, so if that's the FTC's word then they still have to define it.
Did you watch the game yesterday?
It may be measurable, but it has never been used to define which consoles are part of the console market.
I agree. The problem is, we as posters/fans, view this through emotion. That is why we see a lot of revenge and gotcha type posts. Hopefully the regulators will view everything critically and not be driven by emotion. I don't care which way it goes as long as it does not weaken the industry. I can see pros and cons from both sides. I will say that anyone who states that this is not Microsoft trying to buy their way to the top is being disingenuous. That is not a knock-on MS, that is their current strategy for better or worse.
And so were mine. Doesn't change the fact you can carve up the market in any way you want to make a point. Doesn't change that Nintendo is every bit a video game competitor with games and systems tracked right along with Xbox and PlayStation. It is ridiculous to exclude them.
Right. The FTC and posters on the website NeoGAF.com are saying that the Switch doesn't count because of reasons. What made the number of fps or pixels or polygons or watts the metric that officially excludes Nintendo from the market other than the desire for the people saying it to be so? Is there an official definition for this somewhere? What is the definition of the high performance market?
Why arguing with this topic?
I don't think it will be based on "you must run this game fast" it will be based on "do you run the games at all?" it's not to be defined as a console either but to show there is a separated market and audience like there is for mobile games for example. If they can show that the big third party releases do not develop those games for a specific lower spec handheld machine or create separate releases like CoD: Mobile or Fifa 23 legacy edition then that market for "high performance" consoles is a different relevant market that the publishers target. I'm not sure how they plan to do that quantitatively but I guess they can show how much of a crossover there is in third party library and game sales between xbox and PS vs switch and PS/xbox.
The high performance console market is something that didn't exist prior to this acquisition. It's something that, at this point, is totally made up because there is literally no definition of it other than Xbox and PlayStation hardware is more powerful than Nintendo hardware.
There was never a 'high performance market' when it comes to console video games. There was PC, console, and mobile. With an ambiguous term like 'high performance market' Xbox and PS5 would be excluded when compared to a PC running an RTX 3090 or 4090. Would you happily include the XSS in the 'high performance market'? You'd have to in order to make this asinine argument work. Let's not pretend that this is how these markets have traditionally been defined.
I understand where you're coming from. To make this definition stick they're going to have to prove that Activision games are not developed for Switch simply because it isn't powerful enough to run those games. The absence of a single game on that platform isn't evidence that It isn't powerful enough to run the games because Activision has released other games on Switch. When it comes to a single game, like Call of Duty, there could be additional reasons unrelated to how powerful the hardware Is and Microsoft and Activision will certainly be asked to testify to those.
For fuck sake, it's an easy thing to understand.
Yes. The question isn't whether there are differences. PS and Xbox don't come with their own screen, therefor they are different from Switch. Their games don't come on cartridges, therefor they are different from Switch. The question is whether those differences are adequate reason to exclude a console from the definition of the market for the games Activision produces.
How does our understanding matter in the slightest when it comes to what the FTC will have to prove in court? Did you forget the thread you're posting in?
