Here's the real issue The Switch isn't a "high performance console", but to claim that "High performance consoles" are somehow a market on their own is frankly stupid. Yes, many people have a Switch alongside other systems, but that's more because Nintendo understands how to be everyone's "side console". That doesn't discount them from the gaming populous, and hell, Call of Duty on a portable form factor sounds great. The FTC's trying to create this market definition because it makes it seem like gamers would be harmed by having only 1 choice of gaming platform. This definition completely ignores both the PC Platform, and Nintendo Switch. Anyone who thinks Nintendo belongs in this "high end console" definition is dumb, but equally, anyone who believes there should be a "high end console" definition is also dumb. There's 4 gaming platforms. PC, Xbox, PlayStation, Switch. PC and Switch are smart in making the Platform itself a selling feature, which is why the PS and Xbox are fought over which is better... because there's nothing to those platforms outside "muh s'clusives".
Totally respect this perspective. Where I disagree mainly stems from what you say here about how the FTC's distinction ignores both the Switch and the PC. You're right about that, it totally does, but I think that's for a decent reason and an important one in the specific case of Microsoft/ATV/etc. The PC and Switch offer an entirely different experience from the PS5 and Xbox, which offer more or less the same experience and are marketing to the same audience. I think that's part of the reason why the PC was never even brought up here (although that analogy may not be great since the PC isn't owned by a single company and obviously exists outside the console market for the most part). The Switch may have some of the same games and also be a massive presence in the gaming world but in regards to PS and Xbox, Nintendo is largely isolated with an almost entirely different base. Doesn't mean there isn't a sizable rollover between the bases but Nintendo markets to people who aren't looking for the same experience as what PS and Xbox offer and the games market has followed along with that for decades. Nintendo carved out their own piece of the gaming market. They're certainly still competition in the sense that they're a company developing and maintaining a gaming platform but when it comes to the specific points of the FTC hearings and the showdown between Microsoft and Sony, I think it's 100% acceptable to make a distinction between Nintendo and everyone else. There's a very clear difference what Nintendo is selling compared to everyone else in the industry. All that said, it's totally possible the FTC is making that distinction with anterior motives and also totally possible I'm a PC elitist with blinders on but ultimately I don't see anything wrong with the "high performance" distinction being made nor do I see how it really effects anything. Will gladly eat my words if I end up being wrong though. Don't mean to come off dickish lol it's an engaging topic and people's opinions on this one are really interesting.
@@JoeFromSeattle Hey, no worries! Didn't come off as dickish, it's good to have these kind of debates, :) My biggest point is that, while yes, Nintendo carved their own niche, to deny they're not a competitor is kind of dumb. Despite carving their own niche, people's time isn't infinite. Nintendo may not compete in performance, but every game/platform competes for our time. And it's there where you gotta make yourself look the best. You want people spending the most time on your platform, since they're more likely to spend on games, add-ons, subscriptions and of course, hardware. Its always good to have disagreements, I believe they're healthy. And by all means, your points are just as valid. I just think gaming is more than a platform. Your time is important too, and platforms need to not only be good for your money, but your time too. :) Being a fellow PC "elitist" though, I get your points. Love my PC, and if Nintendo placed their games on PC, I wouldn't buy a Switch haha
@@JoeFromSeattle I personally agreed with some of the points from Nintendo Prime. Although, I think there's 2 different perspectives from which to view this issue. There's the technological perspective and then there's the economic perspective. From a tech perspective, yes the switch can be a completely seperate market since the specs are quite different from "high end consoles," as well as the choices in games and overall niche the switch fills. Adiitionally not all games and services present on the other 2 consoles are present on the switch. The tech perspective creates the idea that within the gaming market there is a sub-market of "high-end consoles." However, from an economic point of view, if the switch is able to negatively impact the user base and financial performance of the other 2 consoles (xbox and ps) then it can be considered to be in the same market, keep in mind that from this perspective we're not considering additional revenue from subscription services, but rather the user base of the console itself since some subscription services (i.e. game pass) can be benefitted from without an xbox. Now if we take the example of a working adult with a family who has only a couple hours free per day. If they feel like playing a game, they have to choose between a platform, either xbox, ps, pc or switch. It's not possible for the adult to simultaneously use both a swtich and xbox at the same time, therefore the fact that an individual has to sacrifice the use of one console to spend time with the other to play games can lead to the conclusion that the switch forms part of the same market. This can be proven by the fact that when the switch released, active users on both the ps and xbox dropped by a non-insignificant amount for quite a few weeks. Economic theories focus less on the specific software and capabilities of each console, but more on their overall function, which to put it in a very general manner, is to play games. The economic perspective makes no distinction between High-end cosoles and lower-end portable consoles, but only considers their function, gaming. The FTC is trying to argue that the switch plays no part in the market in order to isolate the xbox and ps to make the point that if microsoft were to acquire ABK, microsoft would have a monopoly on one of the largest player-bases in gaming. Therefore, they are trying to lean more towards the tech perspective. Microsoft is trying to argue more towards the economic perspective to emphasize that since their console is behind the ps and switch in terms of installed base (number of users currently using that platform), acquiring activision would present no major threats to Sony, which is the whole point of this FTC v Microsoft case. In the series of videos uploaded by @JayWood2010 , he goes more into detail about the specific points brought up by each party as well as information presented by expert economists from both Microsoft and Sony and that's how I'm making the above argument. Since the FTC is the plaintiff, the burden of proof relies on them to show that the ABK acquisition will negatively impact Sony, and if their points fail to convice the judge and jury (which in my opinion thus far they have) then the acquisition will automatically be allowed. I think Nintendo Prime is trying to mix the tech and economic perspectives and trying to argue that both are in favour of Nintendo being a competitor where in reality they're only a competitor from an economic perspective and not the tech perspective. Edit: Forgot to mention one point. If I'm not mistaken, in the court proceedings, Microsoft stated that if the acquisiton were to occur they could bring COD to the switch by overhauling the games assets to allow it to run on the lower end device as well as due the fact that they have a 10 year contract with Nintendo to port additional games to the switch. During the time Bobby Kotick was called to the stand, he explained that without the Microsoft acquisition they had no plans bring COD to the switch and he has no idea if it's possible due to his limited knowledge in game dev, but he stated that Microsoft/Xbox has the necessary knowledge and therefore their testimony should be considered credible. This is an additional point in the argument that the switch should be considered when comparing the other consoles currently in the gaming market.
@@JoeFromSeattle Outside of both being powerful consoles, they both offer vastly different kinds of games. Sony tends to focus more on putting out those cinematic games that can often blend together, while Microsoft has been publishing more varied games, such as Hi-Fi Rush and Pentiment. Xbox and PC players seem to be more willing to give AA and indie titles a try, which is why gamepass has been so successful, while PS players tend to care more about AAA games. There's also Japanese games where PS and Nintendo tended to compete more on with many Japanese devs not caring much for MS due to it not being a Japanese company (though Sony has for some reason decided to abandon much of the Japanese market over the years, while Nintendo,, microsoft, and Valve have chosen to push more into the Japanese market.)
Its *not* Harman Smith. I got schmixed harder than I ever have in Street Fighter 6 On topic though, Switch ports of AAA games is like desert after a full course meal. A welcome surprise, but not a expectation or standard
Nintendo does need to be in their own category while other companies are up there arguing and fighting it out Nintendo is just frolicking in a forest In their own little world they are a very unique creature what they do never makes sense to anyone you can always bet your ass they will do the exact opposite.
The definition of high performance console excluding the switch is obvious. The problem is, I don't think it matters. The FTC is worried that if Microsoft might be able to get a lead on Sony and make the market less competetive. The existence of Nintendo threatens that as they'd still offer an alternative platform to customers. Nintendo being so different doesn't mean they're not competition. Nintendo competes by doing things differently and offering alternative ways to play, no different to how pc competes with xbox/ps5. Thats my 2 cents, I hope even if you disagree you don't assume I'm a fanboy, I haven't owned a console since my family got a wii like everyone else. PCMR for me
Totally agree that Nintendo is still competition within gaming but they've done a frankly fantastic job at carving out their own niche that the other big players will never directly try to copy because it's so wildly against their core product. I think the difference between Nintendo vs Sony/MS should be seen the same way as Sony/MS vs the PC. Both existing in the same space but not each other's direct competition. I can honestly see the concerns with this one but I think it's being far overblown when there is such a massive difference in the way Nintendo approaches the market (and who they're marketing to) vs Sony and Microsoft
@@JoeFromSeattle it depends on the context in which you're talking about it. This whole conversation is about the FTC vs Microsoft case and in that context, when talking about marketshare and substitutability of other platforms, Nintendo is 100% part of that market, and major competition. Thats where I agree with the video you're reacting to. Where I disagree is when he tries to draw similarities to the actual available content and experience. They're obviously completely different as you say
@@existentialselkath1264 That's true. Can totally see that. I guess my perspective is that ultimately in regards to the acquisition (the spark of the FTC hearings in the first place) Nintendo is almost entirely unaffected (like I say in the video, I don't see how this will change any existing or future potential Switch releases) but bigger picture I probably could have been a little less standoffish about it lol easy to get sucked up in the video when recording these but bigger picture I totally see your point
@@JoeFromSeattle well yeah, Nintendo being unaffected is kinda the point. The FTC is trying to argue that the acquisition would be anticompetetive so if Nintendo (their competition) won't be harmed by the acquisition then that disproves the FTC. Hence why they want to classify Nintendo as another market and ignore it.
@@JoeFromSeattle I just wanna say, you have my respects for a civilised conversation. It doesn't happen often on the internet, especially in this space
the fact that ftc is trying to down play the Nintendo systems should be a bit of red flag if you ask me, tears of the kingdom selling like crazy and Mario kart 8 deluxe will never die because of it still selling all these years, is kinda weird that your for the ftc. heck even nintendo try to go bit mature with developing bayonetta 2 and 3 they even own the rights of astral chain, without help of nintendo bayonetta would of never gotten its sequel game
I have to disagree with you a little bit, especially about what Phil Spencer said about third party games. Because I literally bought a game that was on all three platforms and I own two of them. But I bought the game on switch specifically because it was on sale. The switch isn't even my main platform my Xbox is and that game was available on Xbox. But it was full price. So the switch literally lost Xbox a sale which implies that it is competition at least from a third party perspective.
The FTC is just using Sony’s talking point, because if there are 3 major console makers and Nintendo is doing not just fine, but is beating both Sony and MS it means buying ABK won’t mean it kills Sony. Taking Nintendo out of the discussion helps the FTC’s case. The deal can affect Nintendo negatively, but it wont actually hurt Nintendo’s position. And that’s bad for the FTC’s case if the FTC is trying to block the deal. The FTC has been very ignorant to the industry, but this is low hanging fruit.
Friendly reminder that if/when nintendo do announce a new console (which could be miles off for all we seriously know) it will still be underpowered as compared to the PS or XB offerings. Nintendo dont do power anymore. and honestly I think that is gonna bite them soon, they have backed themselves into the corner with the switch in that they now either dont have a handheld devision or they dont have a Home console devision (my guess is its home console thats gone). nintendo are now 100% focused on handheld/hybrid consoles, which would be fine... except others in the industry are now trying to break in. sure the steamdeck and ROG Ally dont compete directly in the same way... but while before the only option for a handheld was a switch, now you have some options. and if nintendo doesnt try to compete, honestly? they might just end up getting trampled.
@@Yoshizuyuner they won't though that's the thing. The wii u is evidence of this. People didn't suddenly flock to it just because it had good games. And let's not get this twisted, the wii u had alot of great first party nintendo games people did not care about. Mariokart did not save that console. And notably both regi and iwata, the minds behind the blue ocean strategy which put nintendo in the position they are in following the gamecube, are both gone. Nintendo is in red ocean mode which means we are unlikely to see the same gimmicks or innovations which have sold consoles for the last decade. They will keep doing what works, ie the switch, and with that the moment they have any competition that does better than them it's basically game over
@@Yoshizuyuner Nintendo fanboys always seem to forget that Nintendo isn't a magical company. They can't just force a console to be successful. If they could, the Wii U would have been a massive success. Despite having a fairly strong library, the Wii U was their worst selling console other than the Virtual Boy. Mario Kart didn't save it. Meanwhile, some of the highest selling Switch titles are ports of Wii U games.
Here is the problem with that logic. These handhelds are powerful but don't offer the exact same experience the Nintendo Switch does have with its joycons. Steam Deck and Asus ROG also come with a lot of headaches for the average consumer. Asus would really have to petition Microsoft to make good on the concept of making Windows more friendly out of the box for such devices, and Steam would really need to step up proton. Valve and Asus would need to make BIGGER commitments to have a chance to dominate that market. It also doesn't help that Nintendo Switch 2 if it follows the same trends as Nintendo Switch 1 would have access to Nvidia's software, which is miles above AMD's, and will allow games to run upscaled for the plucky device with frame generation.
including the switch in the conversation is bad for the ftc because they almost exclusively run first party ip that are in house and not available on other consoles and is selling better than Microsoft or sonny systems. it hurts the ftc case that what Microsoft is doing is unfair business practice rather than industry standard.
And I agree with them. They are trying to discount Nintendo and Nintendo is one of the most successful concert that ever made today so it’s kind a lying and misrepresenting Nintendo.
This looks like what happens when big gaming corpo drama happens between two plastic boxes and you are desperate to remind people your tablet exists still after everyone is talking about that and not TOTK or the Nintendo direct still.
I wonder why it never comes to mind that the Wii U was 8th gen and whether or not the Switch came out earlier than PS5 and sexbox doesn't really mean it isn't in the same generation.. even if they say it's still "considered" 8th gen. It doesn't really matter either way since the hardware was dated before it released but also didn't look to compete with the future or.. even that current gen. Usually Nintendo have gimmicks that kind of make it stand out but even the switch didn't utilise what it could have as much simply leaning on the fact that it could switch and that's it. They got too arrogant and now fanboys are pissed
Here’s a hot take for ya Nintendo is irrelevant serious gamers play Xbox,PlayStation,or pc and will buy a switch for the occasional game like a Zelda game or fun party games like Mario cart other than that they get casuals that’s it. When my phone can do more than your console ya it’s a fucking joke
Nintendo lready sided silently with Microsoft. Because the Switch will get CoD and other ABK titles and maybe even Xbox titles for the switch in Form of a Streaming Client App/Placeholder. Edit: Gaming History: When Sony entered the console market, they completely destroyed SEGA and nearly destroyed Nintendo. Only the handheld market helped Nintendo to survive. They tried some more times and Sony crushed them every single time. Nintendo decided to retreat to the mountains (handheld market) and fought a guerilla war. They managed to keep the dominance in the handheld market and forced Sony out of the handheld market. Meanwhile Microsoft took over the heritage of SEGA and entered the console market. And Microsoft was just too big to get crushed. OG Xbox was a test and with the 360 MS took half of the home console market. Even in their worst times they managed to held a 2:1 sales figures ratio. Sony wasn't able to fight against Nintendo and Xbox and gave up the handheld sector and tried to wipe Xbox from the market in the 8th gen. They failed. Meanwhile Xbox developed cloud gaming, game pass and returned to PC and built a cross-hardware ecosystem, because Xbox is for MS something different than what Playstation means for Sony. Sony DEPENDS on Playstation. MS doesn't depend on Xbox and Xbox serves the purpose for stresstesting their Cloud services in different areas. The cloud services are MS main business for the future. Xbox is a real hardcore test scenario for their infrastructure. It's a showcase for potential customers. Xbox Network manages licenses, software distribution, hardware store, low-latency communication, audio- and video communication, software streaming for tens of millions of consumers, millions of them simopultanously and millions of them spoiled and entitled to a functioning cloud infrastructure. MS also can demonstrate the reliability of their services under extreme conditions.
What JoeFromSeattle saying about the GameCube and the Wii U being a failure is true and I believe the Nintendo Switch 2 Will meet the same fate, what I mean by this is if you look at the other handheld like the Steam Deck, MSI Claw, Legion go, ROG Ally and many other handheld like these will make people think should I go for Nintendo's hardware which I'm only locked into they ecosystem or get one of the other handhelds that provides more. Basically the Nintendo switch and when the Nintendo Switch 2 or whatever they're going to call it is interact competition with these other handhelds to the point that Nintendo have to really step up the game or feel the same fate as the GameCube and the Wii U, plus I have a feeling the Nintendo Switch 2 will still be underpowered to the point that the fanboys will cry about this for years to the point that many people will be collected so much salt.
Switch isn't necessarily that much of a different market. Nintendo may not directly compete in every area with PS or Xbox. But it isn't a completely separate market either. Nintendo may not like it, but they are indeed competing with other consoles and PC, to completely ignore it leads to situations like the Wii U. The Wii U was a console that was made entirely on a blue ocean strategy. After Nintendo gained success for the Wii with casual audiences, they attempted to appeal to the same audience but found that most of that casual audience had moved onto mobile games, had no desire to upgrade, or stopped playing altogether. The Switch on the other hand is competing with xbox and PS, by trying to offer something that those platforms cannot provide, which is portability, the ability to play the kind of games those platforms have in a handheld form factor, as well as on the tv. Other things that prove it isn't a separate market are the high demand for a more powerful Switch, handheld PCs such as the Steam Deck, and the fact that a large portion of PC, and Xbox/PS players have a switch, and it isn't just for the exclusives as third party games that play well often sell very well on the platform. The problem with the Switch isn't that it is some different market, but rather due to the lack of power, many are having to choose between playing their games in a handheld form factor and playing them with decent performance and visuals. Some people can put up with a bit of a sacrifice, but the hardware was dated at launch and even then a lot of the games were pushing it to it's limit beyond what it was really made for. Not even Nintendo is getting the greatest performance out of the thing, which should be the biggest sign that they should have put out a new version years ago. Also, the idea I got from the FTC lawyer wasn't that they were dismissing Nintendo specifically. They also pulled the "muh 1500 PC" as an argument for why PC wasn't a good alternative if PS didn't get COD. It seemed like the FTC lawyer was specifically speaking as a Sony fanboy, which is why he kept dismissing Nintendo and PC as a part of the same market, because he wanted to make it seem like it was only Xbox and PS that mattered. And he got shot down by the judge in both situations as basically speaking BS.
Nintendo fan boy is butthurt because the FTC says nintendo doesnt matter ( when the Microsoft activision acquisition was in progress). His arguement isnt that Mortal Kombat 1 is a game being released on all platforms, means Nintendo matters. Mortal Kombat 1 releases on the switch and is ssid to be be the worst ugly port. It was terrible. Horrivle graphics and slow framerate. It shoud not have been released on the Nintendo Switch.
The Switch is quite literally weaker than the base consoles from last gen (PS4 and Xbox One). Switch is not relevant in current gen AAA games. It’s so far behind that the next console from Nintendo will STILL be too weak for current gen games like Final Fantasy XVI.
Nintendo is a terrible video game company. Let's just start off acknowledging that fact. But they are a competitor to Sony and Microsoft at least in console sales. Because they pretty much suck at everything else other than making half decent games that run perfectly via PC emulation and not their own goddamn hardware. See what I'm saying about the "terrible company" suggestion I made 🤣
The lengths these nintendo fanboys go to for a company that's very much anti game preservation and very out of touch is sad. but, hey free JoeFromSeattle upload! thought was harman smith for a sec too!
@@JoeFromSeattle No it's not a troll it's real shit . . They are want us to use it and take our data. And pay monthly for cloud pc. When we have hardware. Why would any one wants to move cloud when they have hardware to run windows. Like 100 $ pc also can run windows 11 without any Lagg. Even 50 $ one witch I have that thing can run windows 11 and . my 12 years old laptop can also do work on windows 11 without any Lagg *( yes I have to remove that TPM 2.0 one ) but that thing costed me like 200 $ 12 years before. You can get a laptop . But cloud going to cost more for basic task. And pay monthly for that thing. And why Microsoft want to totally kill os to download 😑. And just make it totally cloud based??? Then who will buy hardware all market s will crash they will come to 0% . And how Intel, AMD and nvidia is going to survive??? Is it the end of hardware???? Àaaaaaaa I am getting mad 🤮🤮😵💫
Mate cry Genshin copy of legend of zelda Don't trust this pc fanboy Pc fanboys ruining the pc comunity Console is a pc but for games with a stronger apu
To be fair though I have to ask, Haven't Nintendo fans suffered enough of the insults/"doom n gloom" nonsense from the media and playstation fanboys as is? If you really think about it from an empathetic standpoint, you'd come to realise that Nintendo fans have often been bashed, insulted, and ridiculed alot over the years just for simply liking their games and Nintendo hardware over sony's. and if you think aut it, it's kind of understandable in a sense why Nintendo fans out there wouldn't be too happy about even the lightest of insults because it just bring up irritating, painful, amd angry memories of how they were treated over the years. Only saying just for food for thought.
My brother in Christ, if you're letting insults from PC/other console fanboys get to you, you need to go outside. Try vegetable gardening or something. We're not being persecuted for liking Nintendo products. We're not "suffering" because the games media is critical of something Nintendo is doing. I have trouble thinking from an empathetic standpoint when from a rational standpoint, there is no good reason why a Nintendo fanboy should rant about an out of context off-hand remark by the FTC in a legal slapfight between two unrelated video game companies.
@@G.L.999 Bro, I literally had one comment on your thread until the time of writing this one. If one comment telling you to go outside because you're taking fanboys and games journalism way too seriously is triggering you, you definitely need to go outside. Stop being so easily offended and laugh at the xbots and ponies like the rest of us.
This man took like 3 sentences about Nintendo's relevance and said hey, I'ma rant about this!
Why do fanboys have to have the most annoying sounding voice.
holy shit i never thought i'd see the day with "Switch Fanboy" in the title without Harman Smith
Here's the real issue
The Switch isn't a "high performance console", but to claim that "High performance consoles" are somehow a market on their own is frankly stupid. Yes, many people have a Switch alongside other systems, but that's more because Nintendo understands how to be everyone's "side console". That doesn't discount them from the gaming populous, and hell, Call of Duty on a portable form factor sounds great.
The FTC's trying to create this market definition because it makes it seem like gamers would be harmed by having only 1 choice of gaming platform. This definition completely ignores both the PC Platform, and Nintendo Switch. Anyone who thinks Nintendo belongs in this "high end console" definition is dumb, but equally, anyone who believes there should be a "high end console" definition is also dumb. There's 4 gaming platforms. PC, Xbox, PlayStation, Switch. PC and Switch are smart in making the Platform itself a selling feature, which is why the PS and Xbox are fought over which is better... because there's nothing to those platforms outside "muh s'clusives".
Totally respect this perspective.
Where I disagree mainly stems from what you say here about how the FTC's distinction ignores both the Switch and the PC. You're right about that, it totally does, but I think that's for a decent reason and an important one in the specific case of Microsoft/ATV/etc. The PC and Switch offer an entirely different experience from the PS5 and Xbox, which offer more or less the same experience and are marketing to the same audience. I think that's part of the reason why the PC was never even brought up here (although that analogy may not be great since the PC isn't owned by a single company and obviously exists outside the console market for the most part). The Switch may have some of the same games and also be a massive presence in the gaming world but in regards to PS and Xbox, Nintendo is largely isolated with an almost entirely different base. Doesn't mean there isn't a sizable rollover between the bases but Nintendo markets to people who aren't looking for the same experience as what PS and Xbox offer and the games market has followed along with that for decades. Nintendo carved out their own piece of the gaming market. They're certainly still competition in the sense that they're a company developing and maintaining a gaming platform but when it comes to the specific points of the FTC hearings and the showdown between Microsoft and Sony, I think it's 100% acceptable to make a distinction between Nintendo and everyone else. There's a very clear difference what Nintendo is selling compared to everyone else in the industry.
All that said, it's totally possible the FTC is making that distinction with anterior motives and also totally possible I'm a PC elitist with blinders on but ultimately I don't see anything wrong with the "high performance" distinction being made nor do I see how it really effects anything. Will gladly eat my words if I end up being wrong though.
Don't mean to come off dickish lol it's an engaging topic and people's opinions on this one are really interesting.
@@JoeFromSeattle Hey, no worries! Didn't come off as dickish, it's good to have these kind of debates, :)
My biggest point is that, while yes, Nintendo carved their own niche, to deny they're not a competitor is kind of dumb. Despite carving their own niche, people's time isn't infinite. Nintendo may not compete in performance, but every game/platform competes for our time. And it's there where you gotta make yourself look the best. You want people spending the most time on your platform, since they're more likely to spend on games, add-ons, subscriptions and of course, hardware.
Its always good to have disagreements, I believe they're healthy. And by all means, your points are just as valid. I just think gaming is more than a platform. Your time is important too, and platforms need to not only be good for your money, but your time too. :)
Being a fellow PC "elitist" though, I get your points. Love my PC, and if Nintendo placed their games on PC, I wouldn't buy a Switch haha
@@JoeFromSeattle I personally agreed with some of the points from Nintendo Prime. Although, I think there's 2 different perspectives from which to view this issue. There's the technological perspective and then there's the economic perspective.
From a tech perspective, yes the switch can be a completely seperate market since the specs are quite different from "high end consoles," as well as the choices in games and overall niche the switch fills. Adiitionally not all games and services present on the other 2 consoles are present on the switch. The tech perspective creates the idea that within the gaming market there is a sub-market of "high-end consoles."
However, from an economic point of view, if the switch is able to negatively impact the user base and financial performance of the other 2 consoles (xbox and ps) then it can be considered to be in the same market, keep in mind that from this perspective we're not considering additional revenue from subscription services, but rather the user base of the console itself since some subscription services (i.e. game pass) can be benefitted from without an xbox. Now if we take the example of a working adult with a family who has only a couple hours free per day. If they feel like playing a game, they have to choose between a platform, either xbox, ps, pc or switch. It's not possible for the adult to simultaneously use both a swtich and xbox at the same time, therefore the fact that an individual has to sacrifice the use of one console to spend time with the other to play games can lead to the conclusion that the switch forms part of the same market. This can be proven by the fact that when the switch released, active users on both the ps and xbox dropped by a non-insignificant amount for quite a few weeks. Economic theories focus less on the specific software and capabilities of each console, but more on their overall function, which to put it in a very general manner, is to play games. The economic perspective makes no distinction between High-end cosoles and lower-end portable consoles, but only considers their function, gaming.
The FTC is trying to argue that the switch plays no part in the market in order to isolate the xbox and ps to make the point that if microsoft were to acquire ABK, microsoft would have a monopoly on one of the largest player-bases in gaming. Therefore, they are trying to lean more towards the tech perspective.
Microsoft is trying to argue more towards the economic perspective to emphasize that since their console is behind the ps and switch in terms of installed base (number of users currently using that platform), acquiring activision would present no major threats to Sony, which is the whole point of this FTC v Microsoft case.
In the series of videos uploaded by @JayWood2010 , he goes more into detail about the specific points brought up by each party as well as information presented by expert economists from both Microsoft and Sony and that's how I'm making the above argument. Since the FTC is the plaintiff, the burden of proof relies on them to show that the ABK acquisition will negatively impact Sony, and if their points fail to convice the judge and jury (which in my opinion thus far they have) then the acquisition will automatically be allowed.
I think Nintendo Prime is trying to mix the tech and economic perspectives and trying to argue that both are in favour of Nintendo being a competitor where in reality they're only a competitor from an economic perspective and not the tech perspective.
Edit: Forgot to mention one point. If I'm not mistaken, in the court proceedings, Microsoft stated that if the acquisiton were to occur they could bring COD to the switch by overhauling the games assets to allow it to run on the lower end device as well as due the fact that they have a 10 year contract with Nintendo to port additional games to the switch. During the time Bobby Kotick was called to the stand, he explained that without the Microsoft acquisition they had no plans bring COD to the switch and he has no idea if it's possible due to his limited knowledge in game dev, but he stated that Microsoft/Xbox has the necessary knowledge and therefore their testimony should be considered credible. This is an additional point in the argument that the switch should be considered when comparing the other consoles currently in the gaming market.
Mobile is also a gaming platform
@@JoeFromSeattle Outside of both being powerful consoles, they both offer vastly different kinds of games. Sony tends to focus more on putting out those cinematic games that can often blend together, while Microsoft has been publishing more varied games, such as Hi-Fi Rush and Pentiment. Xbox and PC players seem to be more willing to give AA and indie titles a try, which is why gamepass has been so successful, while PS players tend to care more about AAA games.
There's also Japanese games where PS and Nintendo tended to compete more on with many Japanese devs not caring much for MS due to it not being a Japanese company (though Sony has for some reason decided to abandon much of the Japanese market over the years, while Nintendo,, microsoft, and Valve have chosen to push more into the Japanese market.)
I don’t think harman is trolling I think he’s mentally under developed
Thats not Harman lol
@@HyouVizer he mentioned him in the video
Its *not* Harman Smith. I got schmixed harder than I ever have in Street Fighter 6
On topic though, Switch ports of AAA games is like desert after a full course meal. A welcome surprise, but not a expectation or standard
0:30 tbh it's the only thing I can agree with him on - it should be accessible to the public so the corruption isn't hidden away from the public eye.
Nintendo does need to be in their own category while other companies are up there arguing and fighting it out Nintendo is just frolicking in a forest In their own little world they are a very unique creature what they do never makes sense to anyone you can always bet your ass they will do the exact opposite.
I was so confused when the video started with the other guy talking first, thought you transformed into a different human entirely.
The definition of high performance console excluding the switch is obvious. The problem is, I don't think it matters.
The FTC is worried that if Microsoft might be able to get a lead on Sony and make the market less competetive. The existence of Nintendo threatens that as they'd still offer an alternative platform to customers.
Nintendo being so different doesn't mean they're not competition. Nintendo competes by doing things differently and offering alternative ways to play, no different to how pc competes with xbox/ps5.
Thats my 2 cents, I hope even if you disagree you don't assume I'm a fanboy, I haven't owned a console since my family got a wii like everyone else. PCMR for me
Totally agree that Nintendo is still competition within gaming but they've done a frankly fantastic job at carving out their own niche that the other big players will never directly try to copy because it's so wildly against their core product. I think the difference between Nintendo vs Sony/MS should be seen the same way as Sony/MS vs the PC. Both existing in the same space but not each other's direct competition. I can honestly see the concerns with this one but I think it's being far overblown when there is such a massive difference in the way Nintendo approaches the market (and who they're marketing to) vs Sony and Microsoft
@@JoeFromSeattle it depends on the context in which you're talking about it. This whole conversation is about the FTC vs Microsoft case and in that context, when talking about marketshare and substitutability of other platforms, Nintendo is 100% part of that market, and major competition.
Thats where I agree with the video you're reacting to. Where I disagree is when he tries to draw similarities to the actual available content and experience. They're obviously completely different as you say
@@existentialselkath1264 That's true. Can totally see that. I guess my perspective is that ultimately in regards to the acquisition (the spark of the FTC hearings in the first place) Nintendo is almost entirely unaffected (like I say in the video, I don't see how this will change any existing or future potential Switch releases) but bigger picture I probably could have been a little less standoffish about it lol easy to get sucked up in the video when recording these but bigger picture I totally see your point
@@JoeFromSeattle well yeah, Nintendo being unaffected is kinda the point.
The FTC is trying to argue that the acquisition would be anticompetetive so if Nintendo (their competition) won't be harmed by the acquisition then that disproves the FTC. Hence why they want to classify Nintendo as another market and ignore it.
@@JoeFromSeattle I just wanna say, you have my respects for a civilised conversation. It doesn't happen often on the internet, especially in this space
I fully expect Hogwarts Legacy to be cancelled on Switch. Or, it'll be an entirely different game.
the fact that ftc is trying to down play the Nintendo systems should be a bit of red flag if you ask me, tears of the kingdom selling like crazy and Mario kart 8 deluxe will never die because of it still selling all these years, is kinda weird that your for the ftc. heck even nintendo try to go bit mature with developing bayonetta 2 and 3 they even own the rights of astral chain, without help of nintendo bayonetta would of never gotten its sequel game
15:43 an actualy good lord you know who impression
I have to disagree with you a little bit, especially about what Phil Spencer said about third party games. Because I literally bought a game that was on all three platforms and I own two of them. But I bought the game on switch specifically because it was on sale. The switch isn't even my main platform my Xbox is and that game was available on Xbox. But it was full price. So the switch literally lost Xbox a sale which implies that it is competition at least from a third party perspective.
"Mortal Kombat 1"
Oh God. NO!
1:47 Oh, Sonic Superstars!, This Game is Outstanding.
The only reason Nintendo should be brought up is as an example of how a console manufacturer handles a lack of third party support.
The FTC is just using Sony’s talking point, because if there are 3 major console makers and Nintendo is doing not just fine, but is beating both Sony and MS it means buying ABK won’t mean it kills Sony. Taking Nintendo out of the discussion helps the FTC’s case.
The deal can affect Nintendo negatively, but it wont actually hurt Nintendo’s position. And that’s bad for the FTC’s case if the FTC is trying to block the deal.
The FTC has been very ignorant to the industry, but this is low hanging fruit.
Whenever I listen to most Nintendo centered content on TH-cam I lose brain cells.
Scott The Woz being the one good Nintendo-based channel
@@MaddoxRaptorOne Scott also has like..way more charm and like ability compared to most Nintendo TH-camrs
funny enough i dont think jaytech is the first. I think the guy who doxxed his patient was.
OH YEAH I forgot about him lol
I think the FTC worded it as such to provide a stronger argument but they fumbled the hell out of it.
Friendly reminder that if/when nintendo do announce a new console (which could be miles off for all we seriously know) it will still be underpowered as compared to the PS or XB offerings. Nintendo dont do power anymore.
and honestly I think that is gonna bite them soon, they have backed themselves into the corner with the switch in that they now either dont have a handheld devision or they dont have a Home console devision (my guess is its home console thats gone). nintendo are now 100% focused on handheld/hybrid consoles, which would be fine... except others in the industry are now trying to break in. sure the steamdeck and ROG Ally dont compete directly in the same way... but while before the only option for a handheld was a switch, now you have some options. and if nintendo doesnt try to compete, honestly? they might just end up getting trampled.
yeah sure they will when the new mairo kart shows up everbody wont even care right?
@@Yoshizuyuner they won't though that's the thing.
The wii u is evidence of this. People didn't suddenly flock to it just because it had good games. And let's not get this twisted, the wii u had alot of great first party nintendo games people did not care about. Mariokart did not save that console.
And notably both regi and iwata, the minds behind the blue ocean strategy which put nintendo in the position they are in following the gamecube, are both gone. Nintendo is in red ocean mode which means we are unlikely to see the same gimmicks or innovations which have sold consoles for the last decade. They will keep doing what works, ie the switch, and with that the moment they have any competition that does better than them it's basically game over
@@Yoshizuyuner Nintendo fanboys always seem to forget that Nintendo isn't a magical company. They can't just force a console to be successful. If they could, the Wii U would have been a massive success. Despite having a fairly strong library, the Wii U was their worst selling console other than the Virtual Boy. Mario Kart didn't save it. Meanwhile, some of the highest selling Switch titles are ports of Wii U games.
Here is the problem with that logic. These handhelds are powerful but don't offer the exact same experience the Nintendo Switch does have with its joycons. Steam Deck and Asus ROG also come with a lot of headaches for the average consumer. Asus would really have to petition Microsoft to make good on the concept of making Windows more friendly out of the box for such devices, and Steam would really need to step up proton. Valve and Asus would need to make BIGGER commitments to have a chance to dominate that market. It also doesn't help that Nintendo Switch 2 if it follows the same trends as Nintendo Switch 1 would have access to Nvidia's software, which is miles above AMD's, and will allow games to run upscaled for the plucky device with frame generation.
Nearly all games in 2023: Releasing on all platforms, bar the switch. 😂
including the switch in the conversation is bad for the ftc because they almost exclusively run first party ip that are in house and not available on other consoles and is selling better than Microsoft or sonny systems. it hurts the ftc case that what Microsoft is doing is unfair business practice rather than industry standard.
I thought it was Harman again tbh, lmfao
I'm getting my first gaming laptop tomorrow. I'm getting the MSI G63 3050 with 16 GDDR4 of ram.
I'm actually getting a laptop next month.
lol how even is that guy ? is not Herman .
And I agree with them. They are trying to discount Nintendo and Nintendo is one of the most successful concert that ever made today so it’s kind a lying and misrepresenting Nintendo.
This looks like what happens when big gaming corpo drama happens between two plastic boxes and you are desperate to remind people your tablet exists still after everyone is talking about that and not TOTK or the Nintendo direct still.
Is it just me that feels it's wrong that you can't record/stream a public court case?
What game are you playing in the background? Looks cool.
Brotato
Is…is “disclude” a word?
I wonder why it never comes to mind that the Wii U was 8th gen and whether or not the Switch came out earlier than PS5 and sexbox doesn't really mean it isn't in the same generation.. even if they say it's still "considered" 8th gen.
It doesn't really matter either way since the hardware was dated before it released but also didn't look to compete with the future or.. even that current gen. Usually Nintendo have gimmicks that kind of make it stand out but even the switch didn't utilise what it could have as much simply leaning on the fact that it could switch and that's it. They got too arrogant and now fanboys are pissed
is there a link to that video by klutzy?
the hiss got me hahahah
Nintendo is doing just fine without Activision's crappy games. The same couldn't be said for Sony if they lost access to Call of Duty.
Here’s a hot take for ya Nintendo is irrelevant serious gamers play Xbox,PlayStation,or pc and will buy a switch for the occasional game like a Zelda game or fun party games like Mario cart other than that they get casuals that’s it. When my phone can do more than your console ya it’s a fucking joke
Actually, the switch is 2014 phone hardware since the Tegra X1 was made in 2014
Original switch yes.
But since Lite and Oled versions, they have mild upgraded chip and hardware so more like 2017 parts and oled screen is 2018 model
@@HyouVizer just barley
Amazing Video JoeFromSeattle.
Nintendo lready sided silently with Microsoft. Because the Switch will get CoD and other ABK titles and maybe even Xbox titles for the switch in Form of a Streaming Client App/Placeholder.
Edit: Gaming History: When Sony entered the console market, they completely destroyed SEGA and nearly destroyed Nintendo. Only the handheld market helped Nintendo to survive. They tried some more times and Sony crushed them every single time. Nintendo decided to retreat to the mountains (handheld market) and fought a guerilla war. They managed to keep the dominance in the handheld market and forced Sony out of the handheld market. Meanwhile Microsoft took over the heritage of SEGA and entered the console market. And Microsoft was just too big to get crushed. OG Xbox was a test and with the 360 MS took half of the home console market. Even in their worst times they managed to held a 2:1 sales figures ratio. Sony wasn't able to fight against Nintendo and Xbox and gave up the handheld sector and tried to wipe Xbox from the market in the 8th gen. They failed. Meanwhile Xbox developed cloud gaming, game pass and returned to PC and built a cross-hardware ecosystem, because Xbox is for MS something different than what Playstation means for Sony. Sony DEPENDS on Playstation. MS doesn't depend on Xbox and Xbox serves the purpose for stresstesting their Cloud services in different areas. The cloud services are MS main business for the future. Xbox is a real hardcore test scenario for their infrastructure. It's a showcase for potential customers. Xbox Network manages licenses, software distribution, hardware store, low-latency communication, audio- and video communication, software streaming for tens of millions of consumers, millions of them simopultanously and millions of them spoiled and entitled to a functioning cloud infrastructure. MS also can demonstrate the reliability of their services under extreme conditions.
What JoeFromSeattle saying about the GameCube and the Wii U being a failure is true and I believe the Nintendo Switch 2 Will meet the same fate, what I mean by this is if you look at the other handheld like the Steam Deck, MSI Claw, Legion go, ROG Ally and many other handheld like these will make people think should I go for Nintendo's hardware which I'm only locked into they ecosystem or get one of the other handhelds that provides more.
Basically the Nintendo switch and when the Nintendo Switch 2 or whatever they're going to call it is interact competition with these other handhelds to the point that Nintendo have to really step up the game or feel the same fate as the GameCube and the Wii U, plus I have a feeling the Nintendo Switch 2 will still be underpowered to the point that the fanboys will cry about this for years to the point that many people will be collected so much salt.
Switch isn't necessarily that much of a different market. Nintendo may not directly compete in every area with PS or Xbox. But it isn't a completely separate market either. Nintendo may not like it, but they are indeed competing with other consoles and PC, to completely ignore it leads to situations like the Wii U. The Wii U was a console that was made entirely on a blue ocean strategy. After Nintendo gained success for the Wii with casual audiences, they attempted to appeal to the same audience but found that most of that casual audience had moved onto mobile games, had no desire to upgrade, or stopped playing altogether. The Switch on the other hand is competing with xbox and PS, by trying to offer something that those platforms cannot provide, which is portability, the ability to play the kind of games those platforms have in a handheld form factor, as well as on the tv.
Other things that prove it isn't a separate market are the high demand for a more powerful Switch, handheld PCs such as the Steam Deck, and the fact that a large portion of PC, and Xbox/PS players have a switch, and it isn't just for the exclusives as third party games that play well often sell very well on the platform. The problem with the Switch isn't that it is some different market, but rather due to the lack of power, many are having to choose between playing their games in a handheld form factor and playing them with decent performance and visuals. Some people can put up with a bit of a sacrifice, but the hardware was dated at launch and even then a lot of the games were pushing it to it's limit beyond what it was really made for. Not even Nintendo is getting the greatest performance out of the thing, which should be the biggest sign that they should have put out a new version years ago.
Also, the idea I got from the FTC lawyer wasn't that they were dismissing Nintendo specifically. They also pulled the "muh 1500 PC" as an argument for why PC wasn't a good alternative if PS didn't get COD. It seemed like the FTC lawyer was specifically speaking as a Sony fanboy, which is why he kept dismissing Nintendo and PC as a part of the same market, because he wanted to make it seem like it was only Xbox and PS that mattered. And he got shot down by the judge in both situations as basically speaking BS.
Brotato, love that game playing it on my steam deck i am addicted
Nintendo fan boy is butthurt because the FTC says nintendo doesnt matter ( when the Microsoft activision acquisition was in progress).
His arguement isnt that Mortal Kombat 1 is a game being released on all platforms, means Nintendo matters. Mortal Kombat 1 releases on the switch and is ssid to be be the worst ugly port. It was terrible. Horrivle graphics and slow framerate. It shoud not have been released on the Nintendo Switch.
The Switch is quite literally weaker than the base consoles from last gen (PS4 and Xbox One). Switch is not relevant in current gen AAA games. It’s so far behind that the next console from Nintendo will STILL be too weak for current gen games like Final Fantasy XVI.
Wow I feel called out but you are right. I only like Fortnite no build and don't care about anything for build mode. 🤷
Nintendo is a terrible video game company. Let's just start off acknowledging that fact. But they are a competitor to Sony and Microsoft at least in console sales. Because they pretty much suck at everything else other than making half decent games that run perfectly via PC emulation and not their own goddamn hardware. See what I'm saying about the "terrible company" suggestion I made 🤣
The lengths these nintendo fanboys go to for a company that's very much anti game preservation and very out of touch is sad. but, hey free JoeFromSeattle upload!
thought was harman smith for a sec too!
Oof nice vídeo and im sorry users like this represent badly the rest of the fans
Yay, a Nintendo fanboy video that isn't Harman. lol
I think I asked this before but are you Rags? You don’t just sound the same. You laugh the same and pause your speech the same way Rags does.
Microsoft is moving windows 11 totally to cloud based service . have you heard about that.?? I thought you will talk about this in video
I legit thought that was a troll when I first heard about it, horrible horrible idea
@@JoeFromSeattle No it's not a troll it's real shit . . They are want us to use it and take our data. And pay monthly for cloud pc. When we have hardware. Why would any one wants to move cloud when they have hardware to run windows. Like 100 $ pc also can run windows 11 without any Lagg. Even 50 $ one witch I have that thing can run windows 11 and . my 12 years old laptop can also do work on windows 11 without any Lagg *( yes I have to remove that TPM 2.0 one ) but that thing costed me like 200 $ 12 years before. You can get a laptop . But cloud going to cost more for basic task. And pay monthly for that thing. And why Microsoft want to totally kill os to download 😑. And just make it totally cloud based??? Then who will buy hardware all market s will crash they will come to 0% . And how Intel, AMD and nvidia is going to survive??? Is it the end of hardware???? Àaaaaaaa I am getting mad 🤮🤮😵💫
Where's the damn genshin port? That's what I want to know that game is literally made to run on phones and they can't get it on the switch 😅
Mate cry
Genshin copy of legend of zelda
Don't trust this pc fanboy
Pc fanboys ruining the pc comunity
Console is a pc but for games with a stronger apu
Also phone are shits
Prefer to play nintend switch and steam deck than shit phone tach
To be fair though I have to ask, Haven't Nintendo fans suffered enough of the insults/"doom n gloom" nonsense from the media and playstation fanboys as is? If you really think about it from an empathetic standpoint, you'd come to realise that Nintendo fans have often been bashed, insulted, and ridiculed alot over the years just for simply liking their games and Nintendo hardware over sony's. and if you think aut it, it's kind of understandable in a sense why Nintendo fans out there wouldn't be too happy about even the lightest of insults because it just bring up irritating, painful, amd angry memories of how they were treated over the years. Only saying just for food for thought.
My brother in Christ, if you're letting insults from PC/other console fanboys get to you, you need to go outside. Try vegetable gardening or something. We're not being persecuted for liking Nintendo products. We're not "suffering" because the games media is critical of something Nintendo is doing.
I have trouble thinking from an empathetic standpoint when from a rational standpoint, there is no good reason why a Nintendo fanboy should rant about an out of context off-hand remark by the FTC in a legal slapfight between two unrelated video game companies.
@@CapnCoconuts What country are you from?
@@CapnCoconuts Get off of my comment thread will you!?
@@G.L.999 Bro, I literally had one comment on your thread until the time of writing this one.
If one comment telling you to go outside because you're taking fanboys and games journalism way too seriously is triggering you, you definitely need to go outside.
Stop being so easily offended and laugh at the xbots and ponies like the rest of us.
@@CapnCoconuts I do actually. I just didn't like how nonchalauntly condescending your comment was because you weren't taking it very seriously.
Hellooo cartoony crap games...I mean Nintendo games
hi joe
hi