By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Ljink96 on 05 July 2019
Edit Thread
Barkley said:
Ljink96 said:

I have to wholeheartedly disagree with this. They appeal to different people...that doesn't mean they aren't competitors. They also appeal to a lot of the same people. To say that it isn't 100% in competition with other devices in the same industry is quite foolish. There is overlap. They're game hardware manufactures, by default they're in competition...

This is not about being damaging...this isn't a console war scenario about "who's more damaging" or anything of that sort. It comes down to the fact that they're both hardware manufacturers and sell hardware in all major regions, and do share some of the same library. The latest example being Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night. If I have to make a decision of whether to get Bloodstained and a console, I have a choice to get it on PS4, Switch or Xbox. That choice creates competition. Else it's a monopoly. 

"This is not about being damaging..." That's exactly what it is about. If another products success does not have any affect on your own sales then it is not a direct competitor. You're not fighting over the same group of people to purchase your product instead of the other. Of course this isn't the case 100% of the time, just the majority. The PS4/XBO are essentially fighting over the exact same group of people, and absolutely cannibalise each others sales. This is the reason that when the PS5/XB2 launch, it's not going to affect the Switch. Because the amount of people that purchase a PS5/XB2 that would have purchased a Switch if they hadn't is negligible.

They are indirect competitors.

Huh, I thought I submitted my reply, guess I hit preview. But yeah, I still don't fully agree with this, but hey I'll take that they're indirect competitors over not being competitors at all, even though I don't agree with that but it's better than no competitors. My thing is you don't have to be damaging to be in competition, you can thrive in competition without having the mindset of being damaging. You can sell similar goods and services and be in competition.

By the way, Sega and Nintendo were fierce competitors back in the day. Genesis arrived almost 3 years earlier than the SNES, similar to how the Switch launched a bit over 3 years of the PS4 and Xbone. Yet they were competitors, they had different audiences, different libraries but we all know they were competitors. But I stand on the idea that they both sell video game hardware, by default they're in competition. There's some inconsistencies with this argument and for that reason I really can't go further with this. It's too loose of a claim to make. 

But hey, I'll meet you halfway and say Indirect just for the sake of moving on. 

Last edited by Ljink96 - on 05 July 2019