Support NeoGAF

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Not including Nintendo is ridiculous. They were literally putting out "high end" consoles until they got pushed out of that market, along with Sega. And they are still surviving, without the high end graphics and without Call of Duty.

Here we go again

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Not including Nintendo is ridiculous. They were literally putting out "high end" consoles until they got pushed out of that market, along with Sega. And they are still surviving, without the high end graphics and without Call of Duty.

Another Dory

 

[DeepEnigma]

Here we go again

 

[Punished Miku]

Here we go again

Sorry, I forget this is your new home. I'll leave you guys alone to camp this thread until mid 2024.

 

[feynoob]

https://seekingalpha.com/article/45...ck-market-betting-acquisition-will-go-through

Activision Blizzard (NASDAQ:ATVI) is in something of a state of limbo as regulators continue to work through concerns about the company's pending acquisition by Microsoft (MSFT). ATVI shareholders overwhelmingly approved the terms of the deal back in April, but the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently filed suit to prevent the purchase because of concerns that the consolidation of the two companies would be anti-competitive. If the deal is approved, Microsoft has agreed to purchase ATVI for $95 a share, 25% above the current share price of $76.08. ATVI spiked upwards following the acquisition announcement on January 19, 2022, maxed out at around $80, and have been trading consistently below $80 since mid August. The shares are currently trading slightly above the level just prior to the FTC lawsuit announcement on December 8th.

The company is in the midst of dealing with notable legal challenges, primarily involving serious sexual harassment and discrimination issues. The firm culture, simply put, looks dysfunctional. An acquisition by Microsoft should help to catalyze radical change in the organization.

Interestingly, Berkshire Hathaway has built up its holdings in ATVI since the proposed acquisition was announced. Berkshire owned $4.47 Billion in ATVI shares as of September 30th, according to the most recent Form 13F.

Since enjoying a substantial surge in earnings during COVID, as video game sales soared among people with few entertainment options outside of their homes, this increase was not sustainable. EPS for Q1 and Q2 of 2022 were substantially lower than for the same quarters in 2020 and 2021. The consensus outlook is for an earnings recovery over the next year, with a consensus expected EPS growth rate of 7.4% per year over the next 3 to 5 years. The relevance of these projections depends on the probability of the acquisition closing, of course.

I last wrote about ATVI on May 30, 2022, about 6 ½ months ago, at which time I upgraded the stock from a hold to a buy. At that time, the shares were trading at $78.20, as compared to $76.08 today. Since this post, ATVI has reported one quarterly earnings miss (Q2) and one earnings beat (Q3). My upgrade on ATVI was primarily due to the pending acquisition by Microsoft for $95 per share. I formed my view on the likelihood of the deal closing from two sources. The first was the Wall Street analyst consensus outlook and the second was the market-implied outlook, a probabilistic price forecast that reflects the consensus view from the options market. The Wall Street consensus clearly favored the deal going through, with a consensus 12-month price target of $95.56. The highest and lowest analyst price targets were $95 and $100, an incredibly tight range. The market-implied outlook indicated that the buyers and sellers of options were, in aggregate, assigning a substantially higher probability to the deal closing than the alternative.

For readers who are unfamiliar with the market-implied outlook, a brief explanation is needed. The price of an option on a stock is largely determined by the market's consensus estimate of the probability that the stock price will rise above (call option) or fall below (put option) a specific level (the option strike price) between now and when the option expires. By analyzing the prices of call and put options at a range of strike prices, all with the same expiration date, it is possible to calculate a probabilistic price forecast that reconciles the options prices. This is the market-implied outlook. For a deeper explanation and background, I recommend this monograph published by the CFA Institute.

With more than 6 months since my last analysis and the recently-announced FTC suit, I wanted to revisit my rating. I have calculated updated market-implied outlooks for ATVI and compared these with the Wall Street consensus, as in my previous post.

Wall Street Consensus Outlook for ATVI

ETrade calculates the Wall Street consensus outlook by aggregating the views of 13 ranked analysts who have published price targets and ratings in the past 3 months. The consensus rating is a buy, as it has been for all of the past 12 months and the consensus 12-month price target is $92.50, 21.7% above the current share price but just slightly below the planned acquisition price. The range of the analyst price targets is considerably wider than it was in my previous post, but is low compared to most stocks that I have analyzed. The increased spread reflects a reduced level of confidence that the deal will close.

Seeking Alpha's version of the Wall Street consensus outlook for ATVI is based on price targets and ratings from 24 analysts who have published opinions in the past 90 days. The consensus rating is a buy and the consensus 12-month price target is $92.04, 21.1% above the current share price.

The prevailing view from Wall Street is a buy, with a 12-month price target that is very close to Microsoft's acquisition price. The spread among the individual analyst price targets has increased since my previous post, indicating that some analysts now assign a lower probability to the deal coming to fruition. A secondary issue, of course, is whether an expectation of a 21% - 22% gain justifies the risks, given the firm's embattled management and culture and the uncertainties with regard to the acquisition.

Market-Implied Outlook for ATVI

I have calculated the market-implied outlook for ATVI for the 5.9-month period from now until June 16, 2023 and for the 13-month period from now until January 19, 2024, using the prices of call and put options that expire on each of these dates. I selected these expiration dates to provide a view to the middle of 2023 and for the full year.

The standard presentation of the market-implied outlook is a probability distribution of price return, with probability on the vertical axis and return on the horizontal

The market-implied outlook to the middle of 2023 is qualitatively similar to the results that I calculated in May in that there are 2 distinct peaks in the probability distribution. I interpret this as representing 2 distinct possible outcomes: one in which the acquisition closes and one in which it does not. The higher-probability peak corresponds to a return that takes the share price to $91.50, slightly below the $95 acquisition price. The secondary peak corresponds to a price return of -12.5%. The options prices suggest that ATVI will fall by something in the vicinity of this amount if the deal appears to be in jeopardy or is blocked. This outlook indicates that the overall probabilities favor the deal going through, such that the shares are likely to rise substantially from the current level. I interpret this as a bullish outlook. The expected volatility calculated from this distribution is 29% (annualized), which is quite moderate--especially for a stock facing this level of uncertainty.

Theory indicates that the market-implied outlook is expected to have a negative bias because investors, in aggregate, are risk averse and thus tend to pay more than fair value for downside protection. There is no way to measure the magnitude of this bias, or whether it is even present, however. Considering the higher probabilities of small-magnitude (but high-probability) negative return vs. positive return, the expectation of a negative bias reinforces the bullish interpretation of this outlook.

The market-implied outlook for the next 13 months, from now until January 19, 2023, also shows the bi-modal probability distribution, but the higher probability of the deal closing is even more elevated. The peak probability corresponds to a price return of 25.5%, which would bring the share price to $95.87. This outlook indicates that the consensus view from the options market strongly favors the acquisition being closed at $95 per share at some point in the next year. The secondary much-lower peak in probability corresponds to a price decline of 17.5%. This is a bullish outlook, based on a high probability that the deal goes through. If it does not, the shares are likely to drop by something in the vicinity of 20%. The expected volatility calculated from this distribution is 26% (annualized).

The market-implied outlooks are tilted to favor the ATVI being purchased by Microsoft within the next 13 months and that the shares are likely to rise substantially in the next 6 months. The expected volatility is quite moderate, suggesting that ATVI will not drop too precipitously even if the deal fails.

Article is too long. And need a break down. Here is a summary in the procces.

Owning ATVI is a bet that Microsoft's acquisition will go through. The Wall Street analyst consensus is in line with the deal closing, with a buy rating and a consensus 12-month price target that is $2 to $3 below the $95 acquisition price. The spread in the individual analyst price targets has gotten a bit wider in the past 6 months, suggesting that some analysts are assigning a lower probability to the purchase. The market-implied outlooks, by contrast, are assigning a higher relative probability to the deal going through than in my previous analysis. Aside from the acquisition, the good news is that the consensus outlook is for a modest recovery in earnings in the coming year or so. Even with the recent news that the FTC is seeking to block ATVI's acquisition by Microsoft, the consensus views from the Wall Street analysts and the options market favors the deal. As a rule of thumb for a buy rating, I want to see an expected return that is at least ½ the expected volatility. The 20%+ gains expected by the analysts that would bring the share price up to $95 are well above half of the 26%-28% expected volatility. I am maintaining a buy rating on ATVI

 

[DarkMage619]

I don't know what this deal has done to you my friend, but it's grim.

Yes people are trying to exclude Nintendo from the console gaming market with nonsense like its not a system for 'serious gamers' and it's the choice for people looking for a 'low performance device' but the problem is with me.

Might be nothing especially given that they ask other questions about who Xbox most competes with but interesting that they included Nintendo.

It's good to see some regulators being far more thoughtful than some of the others. I'm still trying to understand why it appears to be such a big deal if MS makes their games exclusive. Nintendo and Sony thrive off exclusive software yet there is always much consternation about MS doing so. This is with MS being the most friendly to support for other platforms with their IP too.

Not sure, I think there might be some windows/cloud related concessions depending on the answers

I think its clear there will be concessions because MS has already repeatedly stated they'd be willing to make them. Might as well get it in writing and see if they keep their word as they have historically done.

Not including Nintendo is ridiculous. They were literally putting out "high end" consoles until they got pushed out of that market, along with Sega. And they are still surviving, without the high end graphics and without Call of Duty.

Such wise words. Thank you for injecting some sanity in this discussion. Nintendo has shown a company can compete in the gaming industry no matter what other competitors are doing.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

Their prior games including Fallout 3, Skyrim, and Fallout 4 all were under immense pressure to release during the Holiday season, even if it meant the polishing phase was not yet completed. Releasing during the Holiday's is no longer a concern under Microsoft stewardship, releasing a quality title that is hopefully mostly bug-free is all that matters now. A delay into Spring/Summer 2023 is a good sign.

I took that delay with the same sentiment. They can clean up the bugs. I regard this game as the second most important release in Microsoft's gaming history. It's Halo 1 and then it's this. Releasing in a broken state was out of the question. It's going to be the cleanest game Bethesda has ever released.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

but the problem is with me.

 

[feynoob]

It's going to be the cleanest game Bethesda has ever released.

 

[feynoob]

DarkMage619 when ever someone mentions switch.

 

[gothmog]

https://seekingalpha.com/article/45...ck-market-betting-acquisition-will-go-through











Article is too long. And need a break down. Here is a summary in the procces.

An incredibly long winded way of saying that ATVI is $76 a share and even if the deal does not go through the outlook is that it will go up to like $90 naturally.

So it's not only not much of a risk to acquire stock in ATVI, but you will probably make out no matter which way the deal goes.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Yes people are trying to exclude Nintendo from the console gaming market with nonsense like its not a system for 'serious gamers' and it's the choice for people looking for a 'low performance device' but the problem is with me.

It's good to see some regulators being far more thoughtful than some of the others. I'm still trying to understand why it appears to be such a big deal if MS makes their games exclusive. Nintendo and Sony thrive off exclusive software yet there is always much consternation about MS doing so. This is with MS being the most friendly to support for other platforms with their IP too.

I think it's clear there will be concessions because MS has already repeatedly stated they'd be willing to make them. Might as well get it in writing and see if they keep their word as they have historically done.


Such wise words. Thank you for injecting some sanity into this discussion. Nintendo has shown a company can compete in the gaming industry no matter what other competitors are doing.

You are not understanding the point or you are arguing the wrong arguments. Or even worse; you are acting willfully ignorant for the sake of it.

Nintendo Switch as console hardware is not competing (aka can function as a substitute for an Xbox series neither a PlayStation 5).

Despite Nintendo, Xbox, and Playsation existing in the same industry.

 

[gothmog]

If MS doesn't respond to the FTC, the FTC complaint will be final, MS will be admitting their acquisition is illegal and the deal will be blocked. They have to respond by Thursday.

That response could have already been filed. Either way the hearing isn't until August. This was just the deadline to get a response entered.

 

[feynoob]

That response could have already been filed. Either way the hearing isn't until August. This was just the deadline to get a response entered.

The response is due in 1-3 days.

 

[reksveks]

Nintendo Switch as console hardware is not competing (aka can function as a substitute for an Xbox series neither a PlayStation 5).

Think we need to acknowledge as a 'forum' (maybe explicitly) that it is a question ultimately for a judge and it is subjective.

Same re: markets definitions of Gaming Streaming and multi-game subscriptions, can game streaming function the same as native gaming, no but does it have enough similarity and impact demand of native gaming, yes.

 

[adamsapple]

EU regulators quiz rivals on Microsoft tactics after Activision

EU antitrust regulators have asked game developers and distributors if they think Microsoft will block their access to Activision Blizzard's games once it has bought the company, an EU document seen by Reuters shows.

www.reuters.com

BRUSSELS, Dec 20 (Reuters) - EU antitrust regulators have asked game developers and distributors if they think Microsoft (MSFT.O) will block their access to Activision Blizzard's (ATVI.O) games once it has bought the company, an EU document seen by Reuters shows.

"Please specify which partial exclusivity strategy or strategies you believe Microsoft would have the ability to deploy with respect to Activision Blizzard's console games after Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard," the questionnaire asked.

The EU antitrust watchdog asked if such strategies would include degrading the quality or interoperability of Activision's games available on competing consoles or providing upgrades to Activision's games only on Xbox.

Other options were raising the wholesale price of Activision's games for distribution on competing consoles and making them available on competing consoles at a later date.

Companies were also asked if Microsoft would make some of Activision's gaming content and features exclusively available only on Xbox but not on competing consoles.

The document also included a question about Activision's Call of Duty, asking which video game franchise is considered the most important for a console game distributor to offer and what other main alternatives there are to Call of Duty.

They also wanted to know the impact for competition between cloud game streaming services if the combined Activision portfolio were to become available as part of such a service.

Rival providers of PC operating systems were asked if Microsoft would have the technical ability to prevent Activision's games from being compatible with non-Windows operating systems.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Think we need to acknowledge as a 'forum' (maybe explicitly) that it is a question ultimately for a judge and it is subjective.

Same re: markets definitions of Gaming Streaming and multi-game subscriptions, can game streaming function the same as native gaming, no but does it have enough similarity and impact demand of native gaming, yes.

If you want ray tracing, that excludes the Switch.

If you want high frame-rates that exclude switch.

Can you take your PS5/Xbox Series and play them on the subway, in the park, or at the bus stop?

 

[DarkMage619]

You are not understanding the point or you are arguing the wrong arguments. Or even worse; you are acting willfully ignorant for the sake of it.

Nintendo Switch as console hardware is not competing (aka can function as a substitute for an Xbox series neither a PlayStation 5).

Despite Nintendo, Xbox, and Playsation existing in the same industry.

I completely disagree. Carving up the market to exclude Nintendo as a non serious low performance device is nonsense. Just as much as trying on the next hand to argue that the XSS IS a high performance device for serious gamers. It's so ridiculous.

People don't go to the store looking for a low performance game console. They look for one with games they want to play for an affordable price. The XSS is just as much of a 'lower performance device', if we are going by the FTC's lame definitions, as the Switch and is targeting the same audience. It is willfully ignorant to suggest otherwise but many here may have just stating gaming with the PlayStation and really don't know any better.

Think we need to acknowledge as a 'forum' (maybe explicitly) that it is a question ultimately for a judge and it is subjective.

Same re: markets definitions of Gaming Streaming and multi-game subscriptions, can game streaming function the same as native gaming, no but does it have enough similarity and impact demand of native gaming, yes.

Fair enough. I'd love to hear the arguments in court about why Nintendo should be excluded from the game market but XSS should not be. It's like the conclusion was reached before getting the story together first.

That response could have already been filed. Either way the hearing isn't until August. This was just the deadline to get a response entered.

I'd be surprised that the FTC made broad public accusations but MS would silently privately respond. I guess we'll see by Thursday.

 

[feynoob]

If you want ray tracing, that excludes the Switch.

If you want high frame-rates that exclude switch

Those aren't what defines competition.
It would be library, 3rd party games, consumers desire for each platform of those 3rd party games.

FTC pointers needed more clarification.

 

[reksveks]

If you want ray tracing, that excludes the Switch.

If you want high frame-rates that exclude switch.

Can you take your PS5/Xbox Series and play them on the subway, in the park, or at the bus stop?

You want to talk about the point aka the fact that ultimately a judge will makes the relevant decision and generally they look at the following:

European Commission comments when looking at the Bethesda deal (again this may change)

As regards a possible segmentation of a hypothetical digital distribution market based on the payment model (upfront payment vs. subscription), the results of the market investigation indicate that such a segmentation is not warranted, in particular because digital payment models to a large extent are interchangeable.47 Similarly, the results of the market investigation do not support segmenting the hypothetical digital distribution market by types of players' access (download vs. streaming). A large majority of respondents in the market investigation indicated that such a segmentation is not appropriate in particular because different access does not influence the players' purchasing behaviour and choices.48 On this basis, for the purpose of this decision, the Commission will not distinguish different segments in the digital distribution market, based on the payment model and on the types of access.

US Court precedent, you can find the link in my previous comments

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."

The capabilities/functions of a device may indeed lead to insufficient impact on demand but it's not the criteria that define markets for legal decisions.

or do we just pretend that there is only one set of 'dimensions' (capabilities/functions) at defining a market?

Also market definitions for public/governmental product regulation aren't the same as market definition for industry-led regulation or the same for courts.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

You want to talk about the point aka the fact that ultimately a judge will makes the relevant decision and generally they look at the following:

I don't want to talk about that, and that's not the point I am making.

People can argue about FTC, judges or whatever. Fucking irrelevant (you can agree or disagree with them) that is not my point

I am pragmatic, and as a consumer doing my research, when buying shit like TVs, PC Hardware, videogame consoles, etc.... Applying the check and balances:

Switch is not competing against PS5/XboxSeries

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Those aren't what defines competition.
It would be library, 3rd party games, consumers desire for each platform of those 3rd party games.

FTC pointers needed more clarification.

Living under a rock I see .

 

[reksveks]

I am pragmatic, and as a consumer doing my research, when buying shit like TVs, PC Hardware, videogame consoles, etc.... Applying the check and balances:

Switch is not competing against PS5/XboxSeries

That's fine but we are talking in the context of an acquisition and the markets being defined by regulators, your personal and anecdotal decisions of how you look at products (how you compare them) isn't relevant to the deal. the whole consumer market is. They may align or may not.

Do we agree on that?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

That's fine but we are talking in the context of an acquisition and the markets being defined by regulators, your personal and anecdotal decisions of how you look at products isn't relevant. the whole consumer market is. They may align or may not.

And that what you end up with endless wall of text, people acting like they know more that regulators or using "data" like true "forum videogame experts" making Michael Pachter jealous.

 

[feynoob]

Living under a rock I see .

It's just you who doesn't understand the definition of market.

 

[reksveks]

Third, exclusivity strategies are not uncommon and have already been adopted by rival consoles, with video games that performed better than ZeniMax titles. Such exclusive games have contributed to drive the success of Nintendo and Sony consoles, which have a stronger market position compared to Microsoft's Xbox. In this regard, almost all respondents to the market investigation consider that Microsoft currently holds the least attractive exclusive content compared to Sony and Nintendo consoles. Exclusive games might influence the choice of a console especially at the stage of the initial console purchase. However, once the choice has been made, players tend to remain loyal to their console, as also indicated in paragraph (120) below. In this regard, a slight majority of respondents to the market investigation pointed to the presence of some degree of player loyalty to the console brand. Publishers generally indicated that players tend to remain loyal to a brand once they choose it. Only a few respondents indicated that players are neutral or not loyal. Therefore, it is unlikely that a significant number of current PlayStation and Nintendo console users would switch to the Xbox console as a result of an exclusivity strategy in relation to ZeniMax's games. The Commission considers that these reasons further limit the combined entity's ability to weaken the position of rival console distributors.

EU previously asked the content question in the Bethesda deal.

 

[Topher]

You want to talk about the point aka the fact that ultimately a judge will makes the relevant decision and generally they look at the following:

European Commission comments when looking at the Bethesda deal (again this may change)

US Court precedent, you can find the link in my previous comments


The capabilities/functions of a device may indeed lead to insufficient impact on demand but it's not the criteria that define markets for legal decisions.

or do we just pretend that there is only one set of 'dimensions' (capabilities/functions) at defining a market?

No need to pretend one set of dimensions define the market at all. Look at the differences in power, form factor and the games that are popular on the devices. The only "pretending" I'm seeing here are from those suggesting that somehow simply being a part of the video game industry negates those differences.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

t's just you who doesn't understand the definition of market.

apparently the FTC either. grow up

 

[DarkMage619]

If you want ray tracing, that excludes the Switch.

If you want high frame-rates that exclude switch.

Can you take your PS5/Xbox Series and play them on the subway, in the park, or at the bus stop?

If you want VR that excludes Xbox. If you want day one first party titles on a subscription and PC cross save that excludes PlayStation and Switch. Every platform has exclusive games and features. That doesn't mean they aren't all in competition with each other. The differentiation is the whole point. It is the essence of competition, doing things your competitors aren't.

Those aren't what defines competition.
It would be library, 3rd party games, consumers desire for each platform of those 3rd party games.

FTC pointers needed more clarification.

I can agree with this.

No need to pretend one set of dimensions define the market at all. Look at the differences in power, form factor and the games that are popular on the devices. The only "pretending" I'm seeing here are from those suggesting that somehow simply being a part of the video game industry negates those differences.

There has always been historical definitions of the video game market. This recent acquisition has upended all of that and it looks more political than logical and reasonable. It would be considered trolling if you ran around here saying that the Switch is not for 'serious gamers' yet because some don't like this particular acquisition it is taken as truth. All the consoles have differences. That doesn't negate them being in the same market and in competition with each other.

 

[Punished Miku]

There has always been historical definitions of the video game market. This recent acquisition has upended all of that and it looks more political than logical and reasonable. It would be considered trolling if you ran around here saying that the Switch is not for 'serious gamers' yet because some don't like this particular acquisition it is taken as truth. All the consoles have differences. That doesn't negate them being in the same market and in competition with each other.

It's just the latest in a series of very bizarre assertions. Even if we're talking about the context of game exclusives (the whole point of this analysis), Switch regularly gets a few third party exclusives that are held back for a bit from the other two. Neon White, Octopath Traveler, Triangle Strategy, Monster Hunter Rise and on and on. What a clown show. Switch probably literally has contracts with third parties they can show these regulators showing where they've explicitly paid money to keep these games off the other platforms for a set period of time. Really strange thing to do for totally separate products not in competition or even in the same market.

 

[reksveks]

No need to pretend one set of dimensions define the market at all. Look at the differences in power, form factor and the games that are popular on the devices. The only "pretending" I'm seeing here are from those suggesting that somehow simply being a part of the video game industry negates those differences.

I link power and form factor because they are ultimately product design decisions but thats a different topic.

The comment I was replying to was largely about power/form factor.

If you want ray tracing, that excludes the Switch.
If you want high frame-rates that exclude switch.
Can you take your PS5/Xbox Series and play them on the subway, in the park, or at the bus stop?

Games again is a related but different topic (so many pages ago, i was asking about the % of overlap between each platform, it seems like consumer behaviour isn't really that relevant in the US system, if the product is there, that seems to be more important)

and my comment wasn't as far as stating 'simply being a part of the video game industry negates those differences.' I can't argue for those who believe that, my position is that its going to come down to those 'dimensions' like impact on demand (which I don't know) as stated in previous cases which may or may not be correlated enough to power/form factor.

Think I am tired re the market definition question, have posted the US precedents enough to get the point across.

 

[feynoob]

apparently the FTC either. grow up

library, 3rd party games, consumers desire for each platform of those 3rd party games

That is what competition is for each platform. Not what forum people think.
FTC should have given more clarification, as power isn't the only indication.

Stadia was powerful system, and had cyberpunk 2077. But it didn't have other 3rd party support.

Consumers go to where these games are. Not who has stronger device and more frame rate.

 

[Topher]

It's just the latest in a series of very bizarre assertions. Even if we're talking about the context of game exclusives (the whole point of this analysis), Switch regularly gets a few third party exclusives that are held back for a bit from the other two. Neon White, Octopath Traveler, Triangle Strategy, Monster Hunter Rise and on and on. What a clown show.

I don't see what is bizarre at all about pointing out factual differences.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

I don't see what is bizarre at all about pointing out factual differences.

Facts are bizarre

 

[Punished Miku]

I don't see what is bizarre at all about pointing out factual differences.

If I have to just repeat myself when I already made the point then I'm just not going to bother. The point I just made is that Nintendo clearly pays for third party exclusives, and negotiates set periods of time that these games are blocked from Xbox / PS.

That literally shows, in contractual proof that they are literally in the same market for these third party games. You can point out system differences all you want, but they don't amount to enough of a difference that they are accurately described as an entirely separate market to the point that they're completely isolated from the other systems. They literally pay for the exact same types of contracts the other two do, in direct competition.

Example: Monster Hunter Rise, Triangle Strategy, Neon White, Octopath Traveler. That is literal proof your claim is wrong. It cannot be refuted unless you're denying that Nintendo paid for the exclusivity. THERE IS LITERALLY NO REASON TO PAY FOR EXCLUSIVITY IF THEY ARE NOT IN COMPETITON.

How many people would like to have Bayonetta 3 on PS / Xbox / PC? How many times do you hear that they wish the games were on the other systems any time Nintendo gets a third party game?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

If you want VR that excludes Xbox.

Then you only option would be:

PS5/PSVR2
Quest
HTC.
Etc...

Therefore:
Xbox is not competing in that space.

Therefore:
Xbox is out of the ecuation for the BR market, despite being part of the gaming industy

If you want day one first party titles on a subscription and PC cross save that excludes PlayStation and Switch.

Therefore:
You only have one option .

Even fucking MS points this out. (several times)

Every platform has exclusive games and features. That doesn't mean they aren't all in competition with each other.

Unless you cannot compete with those.

LOGIC PEOPLE, LOGIC!!!!!!!

PS5/Xbox Series ARE NOT portable systems.

Switch is not able to offer Raytracing. it cannot offer a competitive "answer".

Switch cant run at high frame-rates there is no compettition at all .

Game pass:
subscription service in which you pay money, you get a catalog of games. Sometimes day one third-party games

Differentiator factor:
Day One FP games.


PS+Extra shit:
subscription service in which you pay money, you get a catalog of games. Sometimes day one third-party games

Differentiator factor:
PS classics? .

It was you or the other dude -i dont even kown- ? Using the similar premise:

Are GP/PSExtra similar enough to compete. Yes.


Are Switch and PS5/XboxSeries similar enough/offer similar experience?
Hell no.

The differentiation is the whole point. It is the essence of competition, doing things your competitors aren't.

Unless you are aiming at different "markets/demographics " or whatever you wanna define them

An APU is not competing with a discrete GPU At all.

 

[reksveks]

Questionnaire was sent in mid December, is due this week.
- 90 pages, 250 questions , addressed to publishers, developers and competitors (Sony and Nintendo).
- Which other AAA shooter games are important for console competitiveness besides Call of Duty, citing OverWatch 2, Battlefield, Apex Legends, Fortnite and Tom Clancy.
- How rival publishers Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, Epic Games, Nintendo and Take-Two compete with Activision.
- When it will be possible to stream complex games like Call of Duty over the cloud?
- The direction of the cloud-gaming subscription services now, in 3 years and in 10 years.
- What games are played most on PC, and whether the majority of games are free-to-play.
- Would gamer demand increase for complex video games like Call of Duty on PCs?
- Technology that allows Windows games to run on rival PC OSs, like MacOS and ChromeOS.
- Are Proton or Wine widely available, used and effective?

More insights from Ida (OG source: Dealreporter)

Only personally interesting question is the last one re Proton and Wine.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

If I have to just repeat myself when I already made the point then I'm just not going to bother. The point I just made is that Nintendo clearly pays for third party exclusives, and negotiates set periods of time that these games are blocked from Xbox / PS.

That literally shows, in contractual proof that they are literally in the same market for these third party games. You can point out system differences all you want, but they don't amount to enough of a difference that they are accurately described as an entirely separate market to the point that they're completely isolated from the other systems. They literally pay for the exact same types of contracts the other two do, in direct competition.

Example: Monster Hunter Rise, Triangle Strategy, Neon White, Octopath Traveler. That is literal proof your claim is wrong. It cannot be refuted unless you're denying that Nintendo paid for the exclusivity. THERE IS LITERALLY NO REASON TO PAY FOR EXCLUSIVITY IF THEY ARE NOT IN COMPETITON.

How many people would like to have Bayonetta 3 on PS / Xbox / PC? How many times do you hear that they wish the games were on the other systems any time Nintendo gets a third party game?

Guess why the switch is the only console not getting Dead Space next month

 

[Punished Miku]

Guess why the switch is the only console not getting Dead Space next month

Guess why Sonic Frontiers is launching on all the systems.

But seriously man, think about what I just said in the last post. Why is Nintendo paying for any exclusives? Furthermore, why would they have any first party exclusives? Answer that. You won't so I will. TO BETTER COMPETE AGAINST PC, XBOX, PS. If they weren't in competition, if they weren't in the same market, why would they need to have any exclusives?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Guess why Sonic Frontiers is launching on all the systems.

Because it doesn't need a high performance console.

Your turn

 

[Topher]

If I have to just repeat myself when I already made the point then I'm just not going to bother. The point I just made is that Nintendo clearly pays for third party exclusives, and negotiates set periods of time that these games are blocked from Xbox / PS.

That literally shows, in contractual proof that they are literally in the same market for these third party games. You can point out system differences all you want, but they don't amount to enough of a difference that they are accurately described as an entirely separate market to the point that they're completely isolated from the other systems. They literally pay for the exact same types of contracts the other two do, in direct competition.

I didn't ask you to clarify anything. I made a statement about your "bizarre assertions" comment. As to your point, I agree. There is definitely some overlap in third party games. I've brought up that fact up before myself when it comes to games like Madden and FIFA. And I've not made an assertion that Switch does not compete with Xbox and PS in any way. On some levels, they probably do. At the same level as PS and Xbox compete with each other? No. The games that are popular on Xbox/PS are simply not the same as the games that are popular on Switch. That's where the key differences lie.

 

[Punished Miku]

Because it doesn't need a high performance console.

Your turn

They can put Dead space on Switch if they want. It's up to EA. You're not really addressing anything I said.

I've never claimed they have identical graphical capabilities. Doesn't change for a second that they are in direct competition. Think about the Wii. That's even more different than the Switch. What did Xbox and PS do? They tried to compete against it with Move and Kinect.

You're the one in denial.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

They can put Dead space on Switch if they want. It's up to EA. You're not really addressing anything I said.

But they don't. Almost like they're aiming to sell to a specific market.

 

[Punished Miku]

But they don't. Almost like they're aiming to sell to a specific market.

They literally are in competition. It's in the third party contracts. Keep dancing around it if you want. It's literally objectively true.

 

[DarkMage619]

Then you only option would be:

*snip*

Differences in platform doesn't put you into a completely different market. All the platforms have unique qualities but doesn't change the fact there are three competing video game consoles on the market.

They can put Dead space on Switch if they want. It's up to EA. You're not really addressing anything I said.

I've never claimed they have identical graphical capabilities. Doesn't change for a second that they are in direct competition. Think about the Wii. That's even more different than the Switch. What did Xbox and PS do? They tried to compete against it with Move and Kinect.

You're the one in denial.

This isn't going to end in any agreement. You'll never convince some here that the Switch isn't for 'serious gamers' or that the XSS is 'high performance' . As you've noticed this acquisition has done things to people.

 

[feynoob]

More insights from Ida (OG source: Dealreporter)

Only personally interesting question is the last one re Proton and Wine.

That means more food for us until they come back from their break.
Christmas come early for us.

 

[akimbo009]

I didn't ask you to clarify anything. I made a statement about your "bizarre assertions" comment. As to your point, I agree. There is definitely some overlap in third party games. I've brought up that fact up before myself when it comes to games like Madden and FIFA. And I've not made an assertion that Switch does not compete with Xbox and PS in any way. On some levels, they probably do. At the same level as PS and Xbox compete with each other? No. The games that are popular on Xbox/PS are simply not the same as the games that are popular on Switch. That's where the key differences lie.

There are some game types that traditionally lag in sales on Xbox, like Japanese developed games versus PlayStation. Each console has curated a specific audience so they can compete with each other. That doesn't mean they are in different markets.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

They literally are in competition. It's in the third party contracts. Keep dancing around it if you want. It's literally objectively true.

No one has said they aren't in competition. You're just repeating the same bad faith argument that's been done to death. Maybe just start paying attention to what's being said?

 

[Topher]

There are some game types that traditionally lag in sales on Xbox, like Japanese developed games versus PlayStation. Each console has curated a specific audience so they can compete with each other. That doesn't mean they are in different markets.

I didn't say they were in different markets.

 

[akimbo009]

I didn't say they were in different markets.

So we agree.. switch, Xbox, and PlayStation are in the same market. We also then agree that the arbitrary definition of markets the FTC have is also wrong.