• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

FTC Judge said The Nintendo Switch is a competitor to the Xbox

Draugoth

Gold Member
Nintendo-Switch.png

Fast forward to now, as IGN notes, Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley stated that the Switch was a true competitor to the other systems whether the FTC wanted to admit it or not. They even noted that the Xbox Series S was priced lower to compete with the Switch. Plus, numerous high-end and popular titles are on Switch as well as the other systems.

Even though much of the focus was on Sony and obviously Xbox, Nintendo was dragged into the fight in day two of the trial, with the FTC arguing that the Switch is “very different” than the current-gen Xbox and PlayStation consoles. As today’s ruling put it, 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.”

Xbox head Phil Spencer, however, said in court that it was “incorrect” to say that Nintendo “isn’t a competitor,” and Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley agrees with him. While acknowledging that the Series X and PlayStation 5 are both a couple of hundred dollars more expensive than the Switch, the ruling caveats that “Xbox set the price of its entry-level Series S to compete with the Switch.” It points to quotes from Xbox CFO Tim Stuart, who said in the trial that the company considered the Switch when setting the price of the Series S.

"The FTC... [doesn't] consider the extent to which the Switch’s differentiated features... are factors the customer balances.
“And, there are functionality differences between the Switch and the PlayStation and Xbox consoles – the Switch is portable, and it has its own screen and less powerful hardware,” the ruling continues. “However, neither the FTC nor its expert consider the extent to which the Switch’s differentiated features including its price, portability, and battery are factors the customer balances when deciding which console to purchase.”

The court also acknowledges that there are obvious "content differences" between the Switch and PlayStation, but adds that many of the most popular PlayStation and Xbox games are also available on the Switch, citing Fortnite, Minecraft, Rocket League, Lego Star Wars, Fall Guys, and the FIFA, MLB the Show, and NBA 2K franchises.
 

Three

Gold Member
Fortnite, rocket league, fall guys are free to play games. I can see people downloading those to play portable. 50% of PS owners have a Switch.

Fifa, MLB and NBA are sport license releases but I doubt they get much sales on switch and it shows in the "legacy" game support. They should have looked at sales differences between the platforms to see "factors the customer balances when deciding which console to purchase". They would see that the percentage is considerably lower for the, I guess now, "market leader" Switch. Somebody who is planning to buy Fifa or MLB isn't really debating between a Switch or PS/Xbox. Xbox vs PS sure, and the sales difference on Switch would show that.

Minecraft and Lego Star Wars do play to the Switches audience. Diablo and CoD don't really, Diablo 3 tried and Diablo 4 went for PS/Xbox again.
 
Last edited:

tryDEATH

Member
Pretending like the Judge wouldn't consider Nintendo a direct rival was nothing more than wishful thinking from some people on here. You can play the biggest console games on the Switch from Fortnite to the likes of Apex, Roblox, Minecraft, Rocket League, Among Us, Fall Guys, and countless more that are on all three platforms competing for sales. The game being free and of a visual style that some might not like doesn't mean that Nintendo isn't directly competing with Sony and MS for gamers in those titles.
 
I thought the tag "high end" console market was used to exclude Switch and show Sony had a huge % of the market and therefore it was ok for the deal to pass? Guess I haven't been following the case close enough
 

Lasha

Member
I thought the tag "high end" console market was used to exclude Switch and show Sony had a huge % of the market and therefore it was ok for the deal to pass? Guess I haven't been following the case close enough

I think the term originally came from a regulator to justify concerns about the deal. Microsoft can already make market share argument by virtue of its third place position.
 

quest

Not Banned from OT
I thought the tag "high end" console market was used to exclude Switch and show Sony had a huge % of the market and therefore it was ok for the deal to pass? Guess I haven't been following the case close enough
No it was to dismiss Microsoft bringing COD to the switch. If Microsoft never said they would do that the high performance market argument wouldn't exist.
 

Vognerful

Member
Nintendo was always a competitor. The myopic "high end console market" segment was contrived to try and block the merger. Nintendo competes for the same dollars as everybody else.
there were some guys who really pretended that the money you keep aside for console gaming is like 2 separate budgets: 1 for Sony/xbox and 1 for Nintendo.

Closer Closer
I imagine Kerotan Kerotan Kerotan Kerotan going ape shit trying to explain to this judge how Switch doesn't compete because it is not a traditional home console same as he went against Nautilus.
Shades of Nintendo switch vs PS4/PS2 sales threads and "switch is not a home console so you can't compare sales" arguments
 
Last edited:

Lasha

Member
there were some guys who really pretended that the money you keep aside for console gaming is like 2 separate budgets: 1 for Sony/xbox and 1 for Nintendo.

Hardcore console gamers have been like that since the PSWii/Wii60 days. That segment can't fathom somebody walking into a shop and only buying Nintendo stuff.
 

BadBurger

Many “Whelps”! Handle It!
I can't imagine that the Switch steals many sales from Xbox or PlayStation, and vice versa, beyond a negligible amount. But sure, it is technically a console and it and its software isn't exactly cheap.
 

Lupin25

Member
It’s true, even though MS has mostly targeted Sony as a direct competitor.

They’ve completed neglected Nintendo in discussions, yet Nintendo is the OG of exclusivity! Lol. In fact, they actually make MS look worse, because they didn’t need the Switch to be the most powerful console to achieve highest selling platform of last-gen.

But either way, in this case it still paints MS in a “good” light and in a better position knowing the judge acknowledges even more competition and less even market share.

As long as Nintendo is in the console space (hybrid or not) they’re still taking potential customers away from Xbox. Where else would people turn to for a secondary/primary console outside of Sony?
(Would be a steam deck my case, but still)
 
Last edited:

ZehDon

Member
Everyone questions the existence of the Series S.
Series S helps MS case against the FTC.

Everyone now is looking at MS like...

q4575Qs.gif
If the Series S really existed as a means to alter regulatory comparisons to enable large scale industry acquisitions, Phil is out there playing 9D chess while the rest of us are eating checkers.
 

ByWatterson

Member
Culturally, Switch is a separate market, but historically and legally, Nintendo is of course competing for the same hours, eyes, and dollars as the other two.

I don't consider Nintendo a "direct" cultural competitor, but for anti-trust purposes? Yeah, of course it's in the same space.
 
Last edited:

Hudo

Member
Series S fucked them up again.
Actually, it helped in this case because the ruling was (partially) justified that Nintendo is also a competitor (to the Series S, as per Microsoft's own admission) and therefore some of the FTC's reasoning does not apply; they tried to make Sony to only competitor to have more "solid" ground to argue that titles like CoD and online stuff are so important that it would be anti-competitive behavior to giving Microsoft control over that.
 
Last edited:
Of course it is competing for time of gamers, but with that logic the Disney empire, comics, getting wasted etc. i.e. everything and anything is also competition.

Practically no one is deciding between getting a Switch or one of the high end consoles, or XSS, or a PC. It's all gaming, definitely, but an entire different deal with very different reasons why you get one.
 

Fess

Member
I’ve been playing Zelda TOTK since it released. Not FF16, not Diablo 4, not Street Figher 6. Only TOTK. And as a family we added two new Switch consoles to cope with more family members wanting to play it.

Of course it’s a competitor, to everyone.

And I mean if it weren’t, then it would mean that Nintendo would have a segment of the hobby all by themselves, so where is the monopoly trials?
 

01011001

Banned
Fortnite, mobile, Minecraft, mobile. Fall Guys?

FIFA isn’t even the same game.

Such a joke.

Fortnite and Minecraft are some of the biggest games and they are fully cross compatible with the other consoles. we are talking cross play and full cross progression.

Doom is on there, Witcher 3, Apex... all feature complete, Apex also has crossplay... oh Overwatch 2, Crossplay and cross progression
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom