Who's the authority that does get to make up the segments?
Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
Wii was a low performance home console and PS3 and 360 were high performance consoles. There are multiple ways to segment the market depending on how you want to analyze it.
I didnt choose a Switch, not because I dislike Ninetndo content or because it is a hybrid console. I chose a PS5 because Switch is a low performance console, where multiplatform games perform lesser, and a lot of other experiences I want will never find their way there because it just doesnt have the power. For example Unreal 5 games.
And yes Nintendo since does NOT invest in performance, they invest in other features and different content (hint: Low performance console). In other words they create the content experience that needs to compensate for catering less to the gamers that are looking for more advanced visuals and often more mature content that will never find their way on a Switch. For example, Switch is the place to play Smash brothers. But XBOX and PS is where you will go for your TEKKEN and Street Fighter needs.
Developers are free to support Switch and target the potential userbase that own Switch. But THEY chose NOT to, which in many cases the reasons are purely technical. It is not like Nintendo has to go for hunting and beg developers for support for mature content. If developers see potential revenue they will go after it by themselves and Nintendo won't say no. And apparently a lot don't.
On one hand you claim Nintendo needs mature content and is forced to rely on 2nd party games to get them but on the other hand you say they did not care to cater to 3rd party titles as if it makes much sense.
So there you have it. A low performance console which markets itself on the family friendly experience.
We can create another segmentation if we want. Like "family friendly experience to mature content ratio" and "family friendly experience to mature sales ratio" or "family friendly consoles" vs "mature oriented consoles".
Equally valid if we want to make an analysis using "high performance and low performance videogame hardware". Or we can do an analysis and see if performance shows statistical significance with specific content. Like amount of mature content or size of big budget projects.
Sky is the limit.
Last edited:
Segments are filters. The authority of a filter is not based on 'who' gets to make up a segment, but whether the segment defined is successful in it's ability to separate one group from another with consistency over time.
If you spread all the consoles from first generation to 9th generation and you had to use a filter to segment all of the consoles, it would be obvious that high performance and low performance consoles segment only started with X1X, PS4 Pro, Series consoles. Anything else is a console generation.
If you create a market segment and what you have in your market segments changes every single console generation, you did not create a proper market segment.
Says who? Markets change and can be analyzed in multiple ways. We never had motion sensing or hybrid consoles before. And dedicated VG devices (like game and watch) were common in the beginning of the gaming industry, now its a super niche and cater different kind of consumers than they used to.
Prior to the 32 bit era, the market was significantly smaller and video games were less consumed by adults and more for kids and teenagers. Mature content was much less and if violent games found their way into a videogame home console they were subject to controversy.
In the past prior to Nintendo switch, Nintendo had an extremely hard grip on their 3rd party developers, this harkens back to the days of Nintendo Seal of Excellence. The developers couldn't just make their game, they had to jump through a million hoops to do it. Most did not suffer that process except when Nintendo was a monopoly. Most developers left as soon as they saw how much easier it was to deploy 3rd party games on Sega, PS, PC, and Xbox.
Nintendo has only recently loosened it's grip on 3rd party developers.
Nintendo is like Disney, they are a family friendly brand. They have no issue with mature titles on their platform, they just don't want the name Nintendo associated with it. So they use other studios and brands to make them. The Nintendo store has more mature titles than Xbox and Sony put together, it's not even close. They don't have to hunt and beg developers for mature titles, but these mature titles are _not_ the ones that move users to invest in their ecosystem.
When 9th generation Nintendo console is released, it will play likely very close to all the same titles as Xbox and PS if we continue to assume that it will be a handheld. Technically speaking, the NSW had more advanced GPU features than both Xbox and PS, and likely the 9th generation Nintendo will as well going with Nvidia and that is just a fact - if the SteamDeck can run everything the Xbox and PS can, so will their next console.
What you are discussing and supporting of is the concept of gerrymandering.
An authority group (FTC) is changing the borders of a market segment to support their argument to make a 3 horse race a 2 horse race and therefore nullify Nintendo's relevance (of the fact that they have not had CoD) in the gaming market despite being the market leader of last generation (Gen 8) and as of current this generation (Gen 9).
Last edited:
This is a silly argument on semantics that I was only engaging with flippantly
. Someone, somewhere has to make up market segments. They don't exist in the Universe. 
And people make them up depending on what they're doing - research, or corporate financial reports, or whatever. If it was a case 'you don't get to make up market segments' then they wouldn't exist. Someone, somewhere is making them up. Ergo who decides if I am or am not allowed to partition the console market into my own bands? I think I've as much right to divide the console business however I want as anyone else and I jolly well should be allowed to make up market segments! By "you don't get to make up market segments" you probably meant, "the FTC shouldn't be redefining market segments to fit their arguments"?
More seriously, going back to your point, who here is the authority that is defining the market segments that everyone in this conversation (and legal challenge to MS) needs to use? You linked to a market research firm but there are other ways. One can look at Steam and subdivided/categorise that into low, middle, and high performance gaming devices, and consider sales of different types of games across them. I'm not sure the distinction between 'low' and 'high' power gaming is wrong from a different perspective. Indeed, if we consider all platforms capable of being targets for the same games thanks to cross-platform development, it's more appropriate for some analyses to separate the audience into tiers of performance. Low performance plays Among Us (moble devices, NSW, Consoles, PC). High performance plays COD. Looking at the past few generations, Nintendo has occupied a 'low power console' segment on its own. The other way to categorise it would be "consoles with Nintendo games, consoles without Nintendo games." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Last edited:
Yea. This is correct way of writing it
The FTCs decision would ultimately be tested in the court of law. I am fairly positive under scrutiny this market definition would collapse. CoD was on Wii for instance.
I mean for me it doesn't matter ultimately, I know that the FTC is going to just toss up whatever and see what sticks, their main goal is to block this merger.
I have no horse in that race, it's what they want to do, and I understand why they want to do that.
Having a debate here about those particular statements though, I don't believe they will hold in court for the reasons I provided above.
I am only pointing out the absurdity of the fact that the third place competitor is being bared from competiting better while the first place market leader is allowed to purchase and invest with impunity.
You point out the amount of shares that Sony owns in Epic but of course you forget to mention that Sony has continued to invest in the company every year for the last 3 years increasing the stake in the company. The easiest way for Sony or anyone else to purchase Epic is to continue buying up Epic shares and then purchase a controlling stake from Tim. At some point Tim might want to retire and divest his interest in Epic or he might pass and his family might want to divest themselves of the company or become a minority share in the company.
Also I wouldn't call Tencent a company its just an arm of China which of course the USA was asleep at the wheel when they allowed them purchase a large chunk of an american company .
Steamdeck runs linux and emulates direct x through proton. The steam deck os can be installed on other devices and Valve has already said when its in a more final state they will release it so it can be installed on any supported hardware. So yes it would be a rival. Not to mention that Steam itself competes with the xbox and windows store fronts for games and yet MS still supports it
And within those you can also define high performance and lower performance consoles.
What was Wii? Home? Other? What was my PS3 when it got motion controllers? Other? Hybrid Other?
What da fuck is a dedicated console? Is my PS5 a dedicated or a home console?
I was certainly not looking into all these categories when I was buying a PS5 instead of a Switch. Or when I bought a PS3 and a 360 instead of a Wii
We can create different category descriptions according to how we want to observe the market and can be equally valid.
It's all just framing to control narrative. If the switch 2 comes out next year and is more powerful than the series s does that mean the series s is no longer a high end console ? What if it comes out in 2024 and its more powerful than a ps5 ?
Its just all bs. They are just consoles and they all compete with each other.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
It isn't necessarily. That's why the framers of the constitution were keen to have the powers of government seperated into 3 branches. Congress writes the laws, the President (Executive branch) enacts the laws and the Judiciary branch enforces the laws (both WRT how the law is written and how the law is applied). Each branch is supposed to be a check on the powers of the other branches so that no one branch can abuse the power granted to the government by the people. This is why it's so dangerous if one party attains control of multiple branches of the government and members of that party are forced to toe the party line rather than vote as representatives of their constituents. Something that we're unfortunately seeing more of in both political parties in the US recently.
The FTC (executive branch) in the past has been mostly bipartisan with limited interference by the President. It has 5 board members at most 3 of which can be from the same political party. The President appoints the members of the board but outside of choosing their own pick to appoint as the head of the FTC has generally deferred to each party to appoint who they choose.
Historically the FTC reflects the president's agenda by choosing which cases to look into within the bounds of the law.
What we're seeing right now is that the President's party sees an opportunity to try to expand the power of the Executive branch through use of the FTC as a means to try to broaden the scope of the law, thus appropriating some of Congress' power. Basically, they are trying to rewrite the law without actually rewriting the law. And to reduce opposition noise, the President has chosen not to appoint a nominee by the opposition party to the FTC's board (currently 3 Democrats and 1 Republican).
However, the Judiciary branch is the check to the this as the Judiciary branch holds the power to enforce the law. It is their job to ensure that laws are neither written in contradiction of the Constitution nor applied inappropriately.
This is why the FTC isn't currently seeking an injunction as they know their case against the MS acquisition of ABK falls well within the bounds of the law and they would most likely lose.
However, this is a high profile case and as such one that Lina Khan ideologically must go after because she was a relatively radical pick who was tasked with trying to alter how the law is interpreted. This can be seen as the Executive branch attempting to exert pressure on the Judiciary branch to do what they want.
If they don't feel that their case can be won in court, then they'll process it internally and take as much time as they feel they can get away with. There are limits as they can't delay action indefinitely.
It's all around bad, IMO, with the FTC being used in ways it was not originally intended to be used.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Everything you've written smacks of politics interfering with decisions rather than an objective assessment against published criteria. If you have a commissioner who is swayed by political optics, that's the problem. It's why the US seems to be ripping itself apart with states ignoring federal laws and some states seemingly having no accountability at all. This has been really apparant to those not from the US watching the political antics unfold since before the last Presidential election.
It's the type of political manoeuvring and level of corruption that if observed being enacted by another nation, the US are be plotting with insurgents to support a coup.
On the plus side, you watch it for free with a subscription.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
It doesn't take much googling to see that market research firms use make up this up as they go along. These folks are going with "home consoles", "connected consoles" and "hybrid consoles" in their market research. And these folks are going with "gaming console", "handheld console (portable and non-portable"), and they are talk about premium and high-performance game consoles.This is a silly argument on semantics that I was only engaging with flippantly
I wonder what a non-portable handheld console is.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Again, it's because of the current political climate here where both the left leaning political party and the right leaning political party are increasingly being driven by the far left and far right, respectively. It's why you've seen control of the government ping ponging between the parties as the moderate middle rejects one extreme hoping that the other side is more sane.
It doesn't help that social media plays a large part in politics now. Neither does it help that in order for a failing media to drum up views and thus advertising dollars they increasingly report on as extreme a view as they can.
Up until this last election I'd started losing hope that we're return to some semblance of sanity, however there are finally some signs that the large middle ground of voters are finally starting to reject both far right and far left candidates. You can see this most clearly with most of the Trump backed candidates losing and to lesser extent most far left progressive candidates losing. Obviously there are still some hold outs.
A bit part of this is an increased focus on consolidating power in the Federal government rather than allowing states greater self governance (as intended by the framers of the Constution). That consolidation is what allows for the abuse or attempted abuse of power.
I can certainly imagine how it must look to the outside world. But at the same time I look at the government in the UK and shake my head at how inefficient and deaf it appears to be to much of the non-elite of society. Or even worse, something like Italy with it's myriad of political parties that make it almost impossible to get anything done.
Anyway, regarding the FTC. Yeah, it's currently being abused in ways it shouldn't be. It's purpose is to facilitate trade within the framework of the law. Unfortunately, the current FTC isn't doing that.
Regards,
SB
I think they were referring to WiiU. Which was a non portable handheld console.
A major problem of the current USA is that the Federal Government should never have had this much power. Slowly over time and sometimes in large fits forward the Federal Government gained way too much power and control over our daily lives.
Again, it's because of the current political climate here where both the left leaning political party and the right leaning political party are increasingly being driven by the far left and far right, respectively. It's why you've seen control of the government ping ponging between the parties as the moderate middle rejects one extreme hoping that the other side is more sane.
It doesn't help that social media plays a large part in politics now. Neither does it help that in order for a failing media to drum up views and thus advertising dollars they increasingly report on as extreme a view as they can.
Up until this last election I'd started losing hope that we're return to some semblance of sanity, however there are finally some signs that the large middle ground of voters are finally starting to reject both far right and far left candidates. You can see this most clearly with most of the Trump backed candidates losing and to lesser extent most far left progressive candidates losing. Obviously there are still some hold outs.
A bit part of this is an increased focus on consolidating power in the Federal government rather than allowing states greater self governance (as intended by the framers of the Constution). That consolidation is what allows for the abuse or attempted abuse of power.
I can certainly imagine how it must look to the outside world. But at the same time I look at the government in the UK and shake my head at how inefficient and deaf it appears to be to much of the non-elite of society. Or even worse, something like Italy with it's myriad of political parties that make it almost impossible to get anything done.
Anyway, regarding the FTC. Yeah, it's currently being abused in ways it shouldn't be. It's purpose is to facilitate trade within the framework of the law. Unfortunately, the current FTC isn't doing that.
Regards,
SB
I kinda have to disagree with you here. What is considered right wing now (republicans) are really late 80s/ 90s Democrats. The left during the same time has gone both extremely far left and extremely far right. Growing up with was the religious right wanting to censor everything and control free speech , now its the left side of the aisle trying to do so
Been gone for 9 weeks. Wanted to get my thoughts on this down and answer some questions. Maybe get some questions answered. I will try and not go deeply into legal terms or write this like an official complaint or response. Forgive me if you know the correct terms and I am using layman's language to convey my points.
Quick primer. The FTC has gone to their own, in house, administrative law judge (an objective judge and not a partisan) and said this merger shouldn't be allowed to complete. A Response is expected soon from ABK and MS. The case will quickly move to discovery. Any ruling is not likely before approximately summer 2023. If the FTC loses, and they probably will - even to their own in house process, then the appeal begins. Who do ABK and MS or the FTC appeal the decision to? The FTC Commission itself. The agency instigating this process. They can then take a good year to review the process and just decide they were right all along and the judge was wrong. During this time, ABK and MS cannot sue in a Federal District Court. You read that all correct, the process is entirely controlled, ultimately, by the FTC Commission and the parties have no recourse in an actual court. The FTC looks as if they will drag this out as long as possible. However...
The FTC did not take the case to a District Court and get an injunction. Meaning there is no US court stopping ABK and MS from completing the merger. Probably for a few reasons. One, they would lose all kinds of leverage by going straight to the District Court level (Time specifically - they can, and show every intention to, drag this part of the process out for 2 years before it even goes before a Distrcit Court). Two, they have no need of an injunction while several factors remain in play - The EU/UK regulatory bodies on going review and a clause in the merger agreement effectively stating "We will not close if there is pending or ongoing regulatory litigation", meaning they cannot close yet based on their own merger agreement while the FTC is challenging this through the administrative law court. There is a twist here. For us legal geeks this is fun. If MS gets deals done with the EU and the UK, probably sometime mid next year, then nothing would be preventing MS and ABK from waiving that clause and completing the merger. Even while the FTC is challenging it in their own administrative court. To stop the merger, the FTC would have to go to District court and ask for an injunction. Now it gets interesting.
To the best of my knowledge, there is a 2 part test, both of which have to be satisfied, to get an injunction in a case like this. 1 - You have to show that monetary damages after the fact are an insufficient remedy. (Meaning - just paying fines or compensating other parties with cash isn't good enough.) 2 - You have to show that you would likely win. Test 2 is the major problem. I don't have a lot of experience here on this one. Sometimes, despite the tests, it seems the courts will grant an injunction is large cases mostly just to get the parties to settle. What I don't know is if an injunction would be granted in a "rubber stamp" fashion or if the FTC is actually going to have to satisfy test part 2. If MS/ ABK attempt to close after satisfying the EU and UK regulators then the FTC could be in a very bad position. They would face losing in court (not receiving an injunction), not stopping or even much delaying the merger (MS could file as as soon as Summer 2023), and not getting any concessions on the deal. Everything out there says this is a loser in a federal court room. I say that as my own opinion and basically every opinion I have read. Just take into consideration the case law and the composition of the Supreme Court. The FTC won't find many friends on that court even if the liberal appointees side with the FTC. So the FTC wants to stay out of a District court ( bound by existing precedent/ case law)/ statutes) and make the process as long and painful as possible. The above could "short circuit" that tactic if you will.
People are asking if they FTC can simply act in "bad faith". Meaning, they know they have a losing proposition and are just trying to make it as hard as possible for the merger to complete. Basically, a bad faith stall tactic. The answer is yes and no. The FTC is attempting to expand the law through a novel theory. You can argue this is a shit theory and breaks the norms, it is not backed by case law, etc. But you can still argue it and hope (not going to happen) that the Supreme Court changes the precedent the lower courts are bound by. The courts are extremely unlikely to back this. District, Appellate and the Supreme Court itself. The courts are not stupid. There is a case before the US Supreme Court, I believe oral arguments ended a few weeks ago?, Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission. This case is arguing that the process the FTC uses violates the appointment and due process clauses of the US Constitution. In oral arguments, judges seemed rather receptive to this, but that is in no way definitive. That ruling could come at any time. Likely not before, stop me if you have heard this one before, Summer 2023. What exactly happens here if the SC rules against the FTC would depend on the details of the judgement. The FTC commissioners may have to face getting Congressional approval for their appointments (The aforementioned Appointments Clause violation). Not sure exactly what happens here time wise or politically speaking if this happens. There is just no sense in guessing what remedy the court would demand. Pure speculation without an precedent I know of. The other part, violation of due process, is all about the process itself. You tie people/ business' up in your own process for 2 years with the Commission itself being the final arbiter whatever the Administrative Law judge rules, and the parties being blocked have no recourse to go to a District Court and get the issue at hand dealt with quickly? You can readily see the problems there. The way that FTC has been acting has rather forced this case onto the docket.
So, yes, the FTC can act in bad faith right now and use this as a stall tactic to try and convince the parties to quit rather than actually abiding by case law. If the Axon SC case goes against the FTC or MS/ABK close after deals with the UK and EU regulators, then all bets are off.
I am sure you have all read and heard about the recent track record of the FTC attempting to block mergers and failing in court. Seems everyone is also aware Khan has a license to prevent mergers in whatever manner the FTC can with the political blessings of the current administration (Biden/ Democrats but there is some bipartisan anti-Big Tech public sentiment.) They have stated previously they don't care about their won/ loss record. That having a good win rate simply means they weren't challenging enough cases. One other note I read just a couple of days ago. The FTC is attempting to block a vertical merger. No such merger has been successfully blocked in 50 years in the US. (escapist article).
Quick primer. The FTC has gone to their own, in house, administrative law judge (an objective judge and not a partisan) and said this merger shouldn't be allowed to complete. A Response is expected soon from ABK and MS. The case will quickly move to discovery. Any ruling is not likely before approximately summer 2023. If the FTC loses, and they probably will - even to their own in house process, then the appeal begins. Who do ABK and MS or the FTC appeal the decision to? The FTC Commission itself. The agency instigating this process. They can then take a good year to review the process and just decide they were right all along and the judge was wrong. During this time, ABK and MS cannot sue in a Federal District Court. You read that all correct, the process is entirely controlled, ultimately, by the FTC Commission and the parties have no recourse in an actual court. The FTC looks as if they will drag this out as long as possible. However...
The FTC did not take the case to a District Court and get an injunction. Meaning there is no US court stopping ABK and MS from completing the merger. Probably for a few reasons. One, they would lose all kinds of leverage by going straight to the District Court level (Time specifically - they can, and show every intention to, drag this part of the process out for 2 years before it even goes before a Distrcit Court). Two, they have no need of an injunction while several factors remain in play - The EU/UK regulatory bodies on going review and a clause in the merger agreement effectively stating "We will not close if there is pending or ongoing regulatory litigation", meaning they cannot close yet based on their own merger agreement while the FTC is challenging this through the administrative law court. There is a twist here. For us legal geeks this is fun. If MS gets deals done with the EU and the UK, probably sometime mid next year, then nothing would be preventing MS and ABK from waiving that clause and completing the merger. Even while the FTC is challenging it in their own administrative court. To stop the merger, the FTC would have to go to District court and ask for an injunction. Now it gets interesting.
To the best of my knowledge, there is a 2 part test, both of which have to be satisfied, to get an injunction in a case like this. 1 - You have to show that monetary damages after the fact are an insufficient remedy. (Meaning - just paying fines or compensating other parties with cash isn't good enough.) 2 - You have to show that you would likely win. Test 2 is the major problem. I don't have a lot of experience here on this one. Sometimes, despite the tests, it seems the courts will grant an injunction is large cases mostly just to get the parties to settle. What I don't know is if an injunction would be granted in a "rubber stamp" fashion or if the FTC is actually going to have to satisfy test part 2. If MS/ ABK attempt to close after satisfying the EU and UK regulators then the FTC could be in a very bad position. They would face losing in court (not receiving an injunction), not stopping or even much delaying the merger (MS could file as as soon as Summer 2023), and not getting any concessions on the deal. Everything out there says this is a loser in a federal court room. I say that as my own opinion and basically every opinion I have read. Just take into consideration the case law and the composition of the Supreme Court. The FTC won't find many friends on that court even if the liberal appointees side with the FTC. So the FTC wants to stay out of a District court ( bound by existing precedent/ case law)/ statutes) and make the process as long and painful as possible. The above could "short circuit" that tactic if you will.
People are asking if they FTC can simply act in "bad faith". Meaning, they know they have a losing proposition and are just trying to make it as hard as possible for the merger to complete. Basically, a bad faith stall tactic. The answer is yes and no. The FTC is attempting to expand the law through a novel theory. You can argue this is a shit theory and breaks the norms, it is not backed by case law, etc. But you can still argue it and hope (not going to happen) that the Supreme Court changes the precedent the lower courts are bound by. The courts are extremely unlikely to back this. District, Appellate and the Supreme Court itself. The courts are not stupid. There is a case before the US Supreme Court, I believe oral arguments ended a few weeks ago?, Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission. This case is arguing that the process the FTC uses violates the appointment and due process clauses of the US Constitution. In oral arguments, judges seemed rather receptive to this, but that is in no way definitive. That ruling could come at any time. Likely not before, stop me if you have heard this one before, Summer 2023. What exactly happens here if the SC rules against the FTC would depend on the details of the judgement. The FTC commissioners may have to face getting Congressional approval for their appointments (The aforementioned Appointments Clause violation). Not sure exactly what happens here time wise or politically speaking if this happens. There is just no sense in guessing what remedy the court would demand. Pure speculation without an precedent I know of. The other part, violation of due process, is all about the process itself. You tie people/ business' up in your own process for 2 years with the Commission itself being the final arbiter whatever the Administrative Law judge rules, and the parties being blocked have no recourse to go to a District Court and get the issue at hand dealt with quickly? You can readily see the problems there. The way that FTC has been acting has rather forced this case onto the docket.
So, yes, the FTC can act in bad faith right now and use this as a stall tactic to try and convince the parties to quit rather than actually abiding by case law. If the Axon SC case goes against the FTC or MS/ABK close after deals with the UK and EU regulators, then all bets are off.
I am sure you have all read and heard about the recent track record of the FTC attempting to block mergers and failing in court. Seems everyone is also aware Khan has a license to prevent mergers in whatever manner the FTC can with the political blessings of the current administration (Biden/ Democrats but there is some bipartisan anti-Big Tech public sentiment.) They have stated previously they don't care about their won/ loss record. That having a good win rate simply means they weren't challenging enough cases. One other note I read just a couple of days ago. The FTC is attempting to block a vertical merger. No such merger has been successfully blocked in 50 years in the US. (escapist article).
Similar threads
