Support NeoGAF

[reksveks]

Especially when they're overpaying by $25 per share which is unheard of.

Why are we using an absolute number instead of percentage which is typically used when people look at the premium paid for acquiring a company?

 

[Three]

But you're conflating your point with non-existent realities e.g. Tencent already have major third-party publishers as partners or part owned etc. Missing COD ain't the be all and end all. Especially when you add up all the other third party FPS campaign and multiplayer games out there. The sum of the parts exceeds the major player, COD in revenue. COD isn't a must have how it is being portrayed. Just like in your reply.

Also, sure Jan, similar to how Tencent/TGP made PUBG exclusive in China? Right? /S

Also, sure Jan, simiar to how Tencent already own chunks of third party devs? Like the below -

TENCENT OWNERSHIP

Studio	Location	Percentage owned
Funcom	Norway	100%
Leyou	Hong Kong	100%
Riot Games	U.S.	100%
Sharkmob	Sweden	100%
Turtle Rock	U.S.	100%
Wake Up Interactive	Hong Kong	100%
Supercell	Finland	84%
Grinding Gear Games	New Zealand	80%
Epic Games	U.S.	40%
Pocket Gems	Japan	38%
Sea Limited (Garena)	Singapore	25.60%
Dontnod Entertainment	France	22.63%
Bloober Team	Poland	22%
Marvelous	Japan	20%
Netmarble	South Korea	17.66%
Kakao	South Korea	13.50%
Bluehold Studio	South Korea	11.50%
Frontier Developments	U.K.	9%
Sumo Group	U.K.	8.75%
Kadokawa Corporation (FromSoftware, Spike Chunsoft)	Japan	6.86%
Activision Blizzard	U.S.	5%
Paradox Interactive	Sweden	5%
Ubisoft	France	5%
Remedy Entertainment	Finland	3.80%
1C Entertainment	Poland	Majority
10 Chambers Collective	Sweden	Majority
Fatshark	Sweden	Majority
Klei Entertainment	Canada	Majority
Miniclip	Switzerland	Majority
Yager Development	Germany	Majority
Bohemia Interactive	Czech Republic	Minority
Offworld Industries	Canada	Minority
Payload Studios	U.K.	Minority
Playtonic Games	U.K.	Minority
Voodoo	France	Minority
Aiming	Japan	Undisclosed
Discord	U.S.	Undisclosed
Inflexion Games	Canada	Undisclosed
Lockwood Publishing	U.K.	Undisclosed
PlatinumGames	Japan	Undisclosed
Roblox	U.S.	Undisclosed

Looks like a lot of regional markets and holdings to me. But MS/ActiBliz is the monopoly bad guy right?

The funniest part of this case is if you actually want a western console competitor sustainable in the marketplace the MS/ActiBliz deal is likely a major cornerstone of West vs East being competitive long term.

Most of those aren't a controlling stake. That's what you fail to realise.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Most of those aren't a controlling stake. That's what you fail to realise.

Not a valid argument, Fortnite made $9Billion in the first 2 years alone (of which Tencent own 40%). This refutes what you're saying about controlling stake or competition against COD being possible. Tencent have 18 confirmed controlling interests of the 42 I listed, another half dozen are giants like this info below and another half dozen are non-majority holdings. This right here is exactly the definition of healthy competition in any region for COD. Fortnite in its first years outperformed COD by a lot, even with inflation accounted for. Other elements we shouldn't forget are Tencent sharing all COD revenue from all platforms.

This example does not matter if you cut the pie as the FTC wishes and exclude Nintendo and focus only on consoles or selectively choose a region to a granular level. Still a valid argument that healthy competition exists outside of Xbox or Sony. Slice it with streaming and right there is Fortnite and Tencent at 40%. Same goes for mobile. This is all irrespective of MS exclusives or ActiBliz buyout or whatever shady accusations are filed against them. If you reduce by 40% and segment the market reporting, Fortnite is still more than COD did by the same metrics. They cross the same platforms, players, agreements, publishers, developers etc.

 

[Three]

Not a valid argument, Fortnite made $9Billion in the first 2 years alone (of which Tencent own 40%). This refutes what you're saying about controlling stake or competition against COD being possible. Tencent have 18 confirmed controlling interests of the 42 I listed, another half dozen are giants like this info below and another half dozen are non-majority holdings. This right here is exactly the definition of healthy competition in any region for COD. Fortnite in its first years outperformed COD by a lot, even with inflation accounted for. Other elements we shouldn't forget are Tencent sharing all COD revenue from all platforms.

This example does not matter if you cut the pie as the FTC wishes and exclude Nintendo and focus only on consoles or selectively choose a region to a granular level. Still a valid argument that healthy competition exists outside of Xbox or Sony. Slice it with streaming and right there is Fortnite and Tencent at 40%. Same goes for mobile. This is all irrespective of MS exclusives or ActiBliz buyout or whatever shady accusations are filed against them. If you reduce by 40% and segment the market reporting, Fortnite is still more than COD did by the same metrics. They cross the same platforms, players, agreements, publishers, developers etc.

Yours isn't a valid argument. You pointed to some Chinese console. If Tencent doesn't have a controlling stake in these companies it can't force those independent companies to do anything. It's just an investment.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

T Three I never said they could force anything. Just marketplace realities highlighting competition there or that it could be there in regions without blockage from entrance to the market. Zero to do with ActiBliz or Ninty.

 

[Three]

T Three I never said they could force anything. Just marketplace realities highlighting competition there or that it could be there in regions without blockage from entrance to the market. Zero to do with ActiBliz or Ninty.

You pointed to Tencents investments and the Chinese TGP to suggest what then? Do you think pre built windows PC would take off in the US? Why didn't valve's Steam Machines?

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

T Three

To suggest competition exists or can enter the market or region(s) at any time, like my post above stated and backed up. The players exist already.

 

[Warablo]

I'd say Halo lost some popularity but most of the player base would be on console/Game Pass PC compared to Steam. While Sea of Thieves or survival game like Grounded would have a bigger player base on Steam.

So I'd say both parties arguing are right.

 

[Three]

T Three

To suggest competition exists or can enter the market or region(s) at any time, like my post above stated and backed up. The players exist already.

They can't though. Steambox failed. Tencents investments in companies also give them nothing, no exclusives, not even guaranteed platform support because they don't have a controlling stake in them. It's only an investment.

 

[feynoob]

I'd say Halo lost some popularity but most of the player base would be on console/Game Pass PC compared to Steam. While Sea of Thieves or survival game like Grounded would have a bigger player base on Steam.

So I'd say both parties arguing are right.

One side is wrong, when they use 1 chart to determine whether a game is popular or not.

For example, halo infinite on steam in 30 days had an average of 3870 players. That is number of log in per hour. If steam refreshes every hour, and there are 24 refresh hour, that is 92880 log in per 1 hour play time for that day, or 46440 for 2 hour playtime per player.

That is not is a bad number for steam players as the game clearly lacks enough content as of now.

Those numbers could get higher once the game has enough content. You could see 400k player a day on steam.

Steam chart per hour log in

https://steamcharts.com/app/1240440

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

T Three Just like Xbox investing in Gamepass games they don't have a stake in? Same as other publishers or platforms.

Your claim is illogical.

 

[ToTTenTranz]

They can't though. Steambox failed. Tencents investments in companies also give them nothing, no exclusives, not even guaranteed platform support because they don't have a controlling stake in them. It's only an investment.

The Steam Deck is a handheld Steambox and it's much more successful than Valve predicted it to be. They're continuously ramping up production as N7 wafer availability increases.

 

[Three]

The Steam Deck is a handheld Steambox and it's much more successful than Valve predicted it to be. They're continuously ramping up production as N7 wafer availability increases.

It is a handheld PC that's still only sold around 1m worldwide aprox a year later. A little different to the TGP he's suggesting Tencent could sell in the US.

 

[Three]

T Three Just like Xbox investing in Gamepass games they don't have a stake in? Same as other publishers or platforms.

Your claim is illogical.

What? Obviously they have a stake in gamepass but tencent can't dictate anything with their non-controlling stake.

 

[feynoob]

EU is going on break from 23rd to January 3rd. Meaning no review for the deal until they come back from their break.
So we will get news before that day, or after January 3rd.

 

[oldergamer]

Yes, but before that MS also promised to keep Zenimax and Activision games multiplatform. But after buying Zenimax they apparently magically changed their mind and made Starfield and Redfall exclusive, and in the case of CoD what was offering to Sony instead of keeping CoD there was to keep it there only for 3 years.

So MS commitment in these topics can't be trusted, as mentioned by regulators. Activision didn't release CoD and similar these years at Nintendo, and Nintendo didn't expected it because both know that players prefer to play these type of games on high end consoles or PC instead, as mentioned by them and I think someone else that I don't remember, I think it was CMA or Sony. Because these type of players value visuals, performance and a quality online MP experience. This 'commitment' made by MS about releasing CoD on Nintendo platforms is one clearly made to appeal regulators, it's clear that nobody expect CoD sell a lot at Nintendo.

Minecraft is a different case, because it's a kids friendly game that targets a type of player that fits perfectly with Nintendo's plans so makes totally sense to have it on Switch.


It does mean that Sony doesn't compete with Nintendo and MS in VR. But as regulators and both Sony and MS says, does directly compete with MS on high end game consoles, AAA games market and game subs.


I, MS, Sony, CMA or the FTC never said Nintendo isn't a competitor in the videogame market. MS is counted when saying MS is third because in that case they are counting consoles.

But this case is not about that, they are investigating the potential negative effects that this acquisition could have in the market, and doesn't affect PC, mobile and Nintendo.

In the case it could have a relevant important negative effect (which I think won't happen) in case of making CoD exclusive it would mainly affect only the high end consoles because they are very similar in their type of hardware, target user and main types of games, something that takes them apart from Switch, PC, mobile and VR. This is why FTC focus on this segment of the gaming market.

It is perfectly compatible with MS claiming they are 3rd in the console market, or that in the general global gaming market Tencent and Sony would continue over MS in terms of total gaming revenue, or that the acquisition wouldn't have basically any impact on the PC, mobile or VR markets.

Gaming has many markets and submarkets, types of games of players. Each company has a different focus or approach, but in this case the direct competitor, the most similar one to MS and the main one that would be affected by the acquisition would be Sony, the other high end console maker. So makes sense to focus the investigation on this segment of the gaming market.

If you are going to post a wall of text, at least get your facts straight. No ms did not make any concessions or promise to keep bethesda multiplatform. That never happened.

I cant be bothered to respond to the rest

 

[DarkMage619]

It's sad seeing so many people jump onto a bandwagon like this. Just because some regulator like the FTC had to create a specific term in order to make their (Sony's) case (Which still fails on several other fronts), doesn't mean that it's based on logic.

You know your argument is lacking when you have to state things such as "For any hypothetical new entrant in the high performance console market". That term literally did not exist a few months ago. Consoles were just consoles, and they all competed with each other for consumers time and money.

It's just frustrating that we have to wait for this argument to be dismantled in court, and deemed completely illogical. While in the meantime, we have to listen to every PS fanboy use it in bad faith arguments, while pretending it's actually applicable.

I mean, certainly you realize that once this narrative is officially destroyed, how silly your argument will look no? Likewise, just because governments work slow and can take months to go to court doesn't mean that we have to wait that long to conclude what the courts eventually will do we?

Hey at least the new found believers of the 'high performance' console market will now believe that the XSS is part of that market too. I'm certain we won't hear any more nonsense about the XSS holding back gaming seeing how it's a high performance console just like the other systems in this newly created segment. No more Xbox is in third place stuff either, so there is a silver lining.

 

[oldergamer]

All im going to add is that street fighter 4 released on xbox and sold well. There was no reason to make 5 exclusive without a deal to do so. Ms would have paid for it if they had the option.

There's a clear difference in a sequel that had a history releasing on nearly every platform under the sun, vs an entirely new franchise that had yet to be released on any.

The false equivalence here is typical of sony fans complaining about losing to xbox, but cheering when sony does it.

 

[feynoob]

All im going to add is that street fighter 4 released on xbox and sold well. There was no reason to make 5 exclusive without a deal to do so. Ms would have paid for it if they had the option.

There's a clear difference in a sequel that had a history releasing on nearly every platform under the sun, vs an entirely new franchise that had yet to be released on any.

The false equivalence here is typical of sony fans complaining about losing to xbox, but cheering when sony does it.

Money.
Xbox had budget issues during that period. Blame MS for that.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

You know your argument is lacking when you have to state things such as "For any hypothetical new entrant in the high performance console market". That term literally did not exist a few months ago. Consoles were just consoles, and they all competed with each other for consumers time and money.

Doesn't matter if terms didn't exist a few months ago. Just because we've never bothered to establish terminology to recognize the differences between the Switch and PS/Xbox doesn't mean those differences never existed in the first place.

Maybe your real issue is with how flexible the English language is.

 

[reksveks]

Just because we've never bothered to establish terminology to recognize the differences between the Switch and PS/Xbox doesn't mean those differences never existed in the first place.

Will be interesting to see if the administrative and federal judge believes that market definition is valid.

The latter "must encompass the product at issue as well as all economic substitutes for the product." Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Sol., 513 F.3d 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2008); see also id. ("The consumers do not define the boundaries of the market; the products or producers do [and] the market must encompass the product at issue as well as all economic substitutes for the product."). "Economic substitutes have a 'reasonable interchangeability of use' or sufficient 'cross-elasticity of demand' with the relevant product."

Pistacchio v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-07034-YGR, 2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2021)

 

[feynoob]

Doesn't matter if terms didn't exist a few months ago. Just because we've never bothered to establish terminology to recognize the differences between the Switch and PS/Xbox doesn't mean those differences never existed in the first place.

Maybe your real issue is with how flexible the English language is.

The issue with that argument, is that Nintendo is capable of making high end device. So that term is loose, as they can make a switch 2 which is the same as xss or even higher.

Remember, regulators are focusing on future argument here. So their point needs to stay in that topic.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

The issue with that argument, is that Nintendo is capable of making high end device. So that term is loose, as they can make a switch 2 which is the same as xss or even higher.

Remember, regulators are focusing on future argument here. So their point needs to stay in that topic.

Any of these large corps are capable of making a high-end console. There are only two companies actually making them though.

 

[Ezekiel_]

It's sad seeing so many people jump onto a bandwagon like this. Just because some regulator like the FTC had to create a specific term in order to make their (Sony's) case (Which still fails on several other fronts), doesn't mean that it's based on logic.

You know your argument is lacking when you have to state things such as "For any hypothetical new entrant in the high performance console market". That term literally did not exist a few months ago. Consoles were just consoles, and they all competed with each other for consumers time and money.

It's just frustrating that we have to wait for this argument to be dismantled in court, and deemed completely illogical. While in the meantime, we have to listen to every PS fanboy use it in bad faith arguments, while pretending it's actually applicable.

I mean, certainly you realize that once this narrative is officially destroyed, how silly your argument will look no? Likewise, just because governments work slow and can take months to go to court doesn't mean that we have to wait that long to conclude what the courts eventually will do we?

Console market (Sony, MS, Nintendo)
High performance console market (Sony, MS)

I think it's plain to see, even before a term was applied to the sub-market :
- Release on the very same day (or very very close)
- Have very similar specs and features
- Same, or very close MSRP
- Very similar catalog of games (third party support)

MS own internal documents shows that their main competitor is Sony, not Nintendo.

Both companies target the same audience.

What's weird to me, is that at any other point in time prior to this acquisition, this argument wasn't contested.

 

[feynoob]

Any of these large corps are capable of making a high-end console. There are only two companies actually making them though.

Still Nintendo is wild card here.
Right now, switch is not a high end console, so regulators point stands. But once they make it, their points falls flat.
They are capable of doing that, as they are in the industry, unlike other companies.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Still Nintendo is wild card here.
Right now, switch is not a high end console, so regulators point stands. But once they make it, their points falls flat.
They are capable of doing that, as they are in the industry, unlike other companies.

Not much of a wild card when Nintendo stopped chasing the high-end market after the gamecube and haven't made any attempts since.

 

[reksveks]

Right now, switch is not a high end console, so regulators point stands.

The regulators point stands at the moment but if it does get as far as a federal court, you know that MS will be challenging the validity of that 'relevant market' definition based off the following criteria.

"Economic substitutes have a 'reasonable interchangeability of use' or sufficient 'cross-elasticity of demand' with the relevant product."

It's not going to have to do with price points, resolution, audiences or performance directly at least.

 

[feynoob]

Not much of a wild card when Nintendo stopped chasing the high-end market after the gamecube and haven't made any attempts since.

Because of failed wii U.
Now that switch was a huge success, and the money printing of other games, Nintendo would try to make their console little bit powerful to be on par with steam deck and xss.

 

[feynoob]

The regulators point stands at the moment but if it does get as far as a federal court, you know that MS will be challenging the validity of that 'relevant market' definition based off the following criteria.



It's not going to have to do with price points, resolution, audiences or performance directly at least.

That is a fair argument.

 

[Dick Jones]

All im going to add is that street fighter 4 released on xbox and sold well. There was no reason to make 5 exclusive without a deal to do so. Ms would have paid for it if they had the option.

There's a clear difference in a sequel that had a history releasing on nearly every platform under the sun, vs an entirely new franchise that had yet to be released on any.

The false equivalence here is typical of sony fans complaining about losing to xbox, but cheering when sony does it.

People tend to forget Capcom was in a way worse place when that SFV deal was struck. They were a bit desperate. Thankfully their fortunes have improved tenfold. If Sony hadn't co-funded that game, SFV was not coming for way longer than its actual release date. This would have affected Capcom's ability to return to the top table as soon as it did and we would have less games churned out by them. As a result of Capcom being a top player, we don't have the exclusive bullshit now. Had they continued to struggle they could have fallen in the acquisition warz. That would suck for all for Capcom to be relegated in that manner.

Ask yourself, had Capcom not taken the money, would they be in a better position now?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Because of failed wii U.
Now that switch was a huge success, and the money printing of other games, Nintendo would try to make their console little bit powerful to be on par with steam deck and xss.

The Wii U was the result of the Wii's huge success. They're done chasing power.

 

[64gigabyteram]

The Wii U was the result of the Wii's huge success. They're done chasing power.

i wish they never stopped

 

[feynoob]

The Wii U was the result of the Wii's huge success. They're done chasing power.

And will be back for power again.
Most games at this age demand power.
if Nintendo wants to stay in the game, they have to.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

And will be back for power again.
Most games at this age demand power.
if Nintendo wants to stay in the game, they have to.

Stay in the game?.....they are the game

 

[feynoob]

i wish they never stopped

I would have loved if they were to chase power, it would have been great. Imagine switch with steam deck power.

 

[64gigabyteram]

Stay in the game?.....they are the game

they revived the game, as a matter of fact

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

they revived the game, as a matter of fact

Yep. Thank God for Playstation

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I would have loved if they were to chase power, it would have been great. Imagine switch with steam deck power.

Switch 2 managing to match the steam deck is hardly what i'd call chasing power

 

[feynoob]

Stay in the game?.....they are the game

I like my switch. But the one I hated about that system is low 3rd party support.
I know their 1st party is strong, but they will lose a lot of 3rd party support if they release another weaker system.

 

[Thirty7ven]

A lot of people here are forgetting that the FTC will be able to show consumer habits, and guess what will be noticeable on the switch? Very few people playing online.

Guess some still haven't realized that they have a lot more data than "console sold this much"

 

[feynoob]

Switch 2 managing to match the steam deck is hardly what i'd call chasing power

As long as it plays newer games, it will be good.
That is what matters the most, as switch couldn't handle newer games as time went on.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I like my switch. But the one I hated about that system is low 3rd party support.
I know their 1st party is strong, but they will lose a lot of 3rd party support if they release another weaker system.

Yeah. You prove the point that Nintendo is not competing against Xbox, PS despite being in the same industry. Nintendo exists in it's own bubble.

 

[feynoob]

A lot of people here are forgetting that the FTC will be able to show consumer habits, and guess what will be noticeable on the switch? Very few people playing online.

Guess some still haven't realized that they have a lot more data than "console sold this much"

FTC goal is to gain support from European and CMA regulators support at this point.
By blocking this deal, they are saying to fight against it, and join their effort.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/new...-joint-technology-competition-policy-dialogue

 

[feynoob]

Yeah. You prove the point that Nintendo is not competing against Xbox, PS despite being in the same industry. Nintendo exists in it's own bubble.

I am not going to arguing with you on this point. Everyone here understands the limitation of switch, and the main issue that device has, which is the power to run newer games.

Nintendo is going to have a new version system. That system can compete with Xbox and PS if they can able to make their device run newer games like steam deck and xss.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

As long as it plays newer games, it will be good.
That is what matters the most, as switch couldn't handle newer games as time went on.

You're talking base PS4 level of performance, if that. It won't be getting next-gen games.

 

[reksveks]

A lot of people here are forgetting that the FTC will be able to show consumer habits, and guess what will be noticeable on the switch? Very few people playing online.

The latter "must encompass the product at issue as well as all economic substitutes for the product." Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Sol., 513 F.3d 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2008); see also id. ("The consumers do not define the boundaries of the market; the products or producers do [and] the market must encompass the product at issue as well as all economic substitutes for the product."). "Economic substitutes have a 'reasonable interchangeability of use' or sufficient 'cross-elasticity of demand' with the relevant product."

Pistacchio v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-07034-YGR, 2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2021)

Consumer habit isn't going to the factor at least not directly.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I am not going to arguing with you on this point. Everyone here understands the limitation of switch, and the main issue that device has, which is the power to run newer games.

Nintendo is going to have a new version system. That system can compete with Xbox and PS if they can able to make their device run newer games like steam deck and xss.

If they can make it cheap enough to make enough profit with each unit.

But I would expect hardware able to do Raytracing, high-frame rates or enough resolution to be decent on a 4K TV

 

[feynoob]

You're talking base PS4 level of performance. It won't be getting next-gen games.

And?
If I can buy the next cyberpunk 2077 on newer switch, then yes, it's a competitor.

 

[feynoob]

If they can make it cheap enough to make enough profit with each unit.

But I would expect hardware able to do Raytracing, high-frame rates or enough resolution to be decent on a 4K TV

Knowing Nintendo, I might be jumping on the gun too fast.
Hope they don't butcher it.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

And?
If I can buy the next cyberpunk 2077 on newer switch, then yes, it's a competitor.

You aren't playing Cyberpunks sequel on the Switch 2 lmao