Support NeoGAF

[Menzies]

Microsoft could outbid Sony for all the exclusives Sony bought. But ultimately Microsoft is guilty of moneyhatting just as Sony is. AAA's? No, not for quite some time I don't think. Have they? Of course. Does either have the moral high ground here? Of course not.

Technically true, but reputational harm is often not remarked upon in the overall publisher considerations.

There is no way Square Enix is accepting any kind of deal that alienates the PlayStation following of FF games.

By merely releasing FFXIII on Xbox, there were community cries of betrayal, online petitions to ban the release, and death threats sent to their offices.

 

[Topher]

Technically true, but reputational harm is often not remarked upon in the overall publisher considerations.

There is no way Square Enix is accepting any kind of deal that alienates the PlayStation following of FF games.

By merely releasing FFXIII on Xbox, there were community cries of betrayal, online petitions to ban the release, and death threats sent to their offices.

Good points.

 

[feynoob]

There is nothing "impossible" about any of it. Microsoft has done it before.

MS benefited from weak ps3, and new emerging studios.
This is not the same as x360.

The ps4 sold 116+m, while xbox one is close to 60+m.
That is day and night in term of userbase.

This was for tomb raider. The time where xbox had a chance in the fight against PS.

Courtesy of current CREY Games CEO Fabien Rossini, we now know that the Tomb Raider reboot's exclusivity deal was valued at $100 million. This deal ensured that Rise of the Tomb Raider would spend one year only on Xbox, before making a delayed release on PlayStation.

https://www.xfire.com/microsoft-100-million-tomb-raider-exclusivity/#:~:text=Microsoft paid $100 million for Tomb Raider exclusivity - Xfire

Now the money is going to be more expensive than that, especially with that gulf difference between the 2 platforms.

 

[Topher]

MS benefited from weak ps3, and new emerging studios.
This is not the same as x360.

The ps4 sold 116+m, while xbox one is close to 60+m.
That is day and night in term of userbase.

This was for tomb raider. The time where xbox had a chance in the fight against PS.

https://www.xfire.com/microsoft-100-million-tomb-raider-exclusivity/#:~:text=Microsoft paid $100 million for Tomb Raider exclusivity - Xfire

Now the money is going to be more expensive than that, especially with that gulf difference between the 2 platforms.

Money isn't a problem.

Companies ranked by Market Cap - CompaniesMarketCap.com

Ranking the world's top companies by market cap, market value, revenue and many more metrics

companiesmarketcap.com

 

[feynoob]

Money isn't a problem.

http://[URL]https://companiesmarketcap.com/

[/URL]

That is not how business works.

MS wont spend money, when they can simply buy publishers for cheap with guarenteed IP and studios manpower.

The investment on exclusivity needs to be worth for them.

They can still do gamepass day1 in this age though, as that is much a better investment than timed exclusivity.

 

[Topher]

That is not how business works.

MS wont spend money, when they can simply buy publishers for cheap with guarenteed IP and studios manpower.

The investment on exclusivity needs to be worth for them.

They can still do gamepass day1 in this age though, as that is much a better investment than timed exclusivity.

Well, it may or may not be feasible, I'll give you that, but it is in no way "impossible".

 

[DarkMage619]

PC and Console markets are different. He's not wrong about that.

He's a jokester. You can't take anything he says seriously. He only games on 'serious gamer' platforms.

Technically true, but reputational harm is often not remarked upon in the overall publisher considerations.

There is no way Square Enix is accepting any kind of deal that alienates the PlayStation following of FF games.

By merely releasing FFXIII on Xbox, there were community cries of betrayal, online petitions to ban the release, and death threats sent to their offices.

It's like people don't remember the Tomb Raider fiasco. People flip out about almost anything Xbox does. They are better off focusing on building their internal studios. Timed exclusives aren't worth much in the long run.

 

[akimbo009]

Well, it may or may not be feasible, I'll give you that, but it is in no way "impossible".

Not impossible but not reasonable, and not in MS favor. They want more control of their fate and their business. Makes total sense to not want to go into negotiations hat in hand. Which is what they are doing now.

Either they'll be a valid player in the market or they won't. At this point they need to buy market share since they are getting boxed out with other strategies and/or things are taking longer to play out than they want.

In that light, acquisitions make a ton of sense.

 

[feynoob]

Our vibe right now, before MS response gets published tomorrow or next week.

 

[feynoob]

It didnt last long.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/22/mic...are|com.apple.UIKit.activity.CopyToPasteboard

Microsoft on Thursday filed its response to U.S. regulators’ antitrust case attempting to block the software maker from buying video-game publisher Activision Blizzard.

The Federal Trade Commission’s challenge to the proposed $68.7 billion acquisition stands out as the biggest government pushback Microsoft has dealt with on home turf since facing off against the Justice Department two decades ago over the dominance of Windows in the operating system market.

Under President Donald Trump, Google’s umbrella company Alphabet, Apple, Amazon and Facebook parent Meta all faced inquiries from U.S. competition officials. That left Microsoft to go about its business and continue expanding with acquisitions through the election of President Joe Biden, even after Biden’s appointee, technology critic Lina Khan, took over at the FTC. But then Microsoft revealed its plan to buy Activision Blizzard. On Dec. 8 the FTC argued that the transaction would violate federal law.

“Even with confidence in our case, we remain committed to creative solutions with regulators that will protect competition, consumers, and workers in the tech sector,” Brad Smith, Microsoft’s president and vice chair, said in a statement provided to CNBC. “As we’ve learned from our lawsuits in the past, the door never closes on the opportunity to find an agreement that can benefit everyone.”

To relieve government opposition to the deal, Microsoft has offered concessions.

In October Phil Spencer, CEO of Microsoft’s gaming unit, said Microsoft had committed to bringing Activision Blizzard’s Call of Duty games to Nintendo consoles for a decade and keeping the games on Valve’s Steam game store. Microsoft has also offered to sign a 10-year agreement with Sony to release Call of Duty games on PlayStation consoles on the same day they reach Microsoft Xbox consoles. “Sony refuses to deal,” Microsoft said in its filing.

Activision Blizzard has not put immediately made its new games available through subscription services such as Microsoft’s Game Pass, and the acquisition would make playing Activision Blizzard’s games more affordable, Microsoft said.

“The acquisition of a single game by the third-place console manufacturer cannot upend a highly competitive industry,” Microsoft said in its response. “That is particularly so when the manufacturer has made clear it will not withhold the game. The fact that Xbox’s dominant competitor has thus far refused to accept Xbox’s proposal does not justify blocking a transaction that will benefit consumers.”

Microsoft said that after taking almost a year to investigate the deal and examining millions of documents from Activision Blizzard and Microsoft, the FTC has not shown evidence that Microsoft is looking to yank the game series from the PlayStation. Ensuring the games will be widely available is good for business, the company said.

Outside the U.S., Brazil gave the OK for the deal to proceed, while the United Kingdom has been scrutinizing it.

Members of the public sent more than 2,100 emails to the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority in response to a statement from the agency describing three ways the deal could lessen competition. Around 75% of the emails expressed support for the acquisition, the agency said on Wednesday.

If the deal does close, Microsoft would be “the world’s number three gaming company by revenue, behind Tencent and Sony,” Spencer said on a conference call on the day of the deal announcement.

In the months since then, two groups of Activision Blizzard employees have voted to form unions. Microsoft has said it’s committed to efforts that would make it easier for employees to decide on whether to join or start a union.

 

[feynoob]

The response

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cn...221222_9412_Resp_Microsofts_Answer_PUBLIC.pdf

 

[feynoob]

 

[akimbo009]

This is a bullshit chart. No "high-performance" listed!

 

[feynoob]

Other notable parts.

Microsoft is buying Activision to meet the billions of gamers who choose to play on mobile devices instead of a console or PC, and to learn how to make games that appeal to and engage them. Xbox also wants to make Activision’s non-mobile games more broadly available. One way is by continuing to distribute Activision’s games everywhere they currently exist and expanding to additional platforms like Nintendo.
Another is by adding new Activision console and PC games to Xbox’s Game Pass subscription service on the day those new games are released, creating new ways to access those games. Activision has never before put its new games immediately in subscription

It is therefore unsurprising that after nearly a full year investigating this transaction, receiving millions of Microsoft and Activision documents, and speaking to over a dozen witnesses, there is no evidence that Xbox intends to take Call of Duty away from PlayStation—or any platform at all. No emails, no text messages, no testimony. There is one reason for that: Xbox does not intend to take that step. Xbox has some exclusive games, which are a necessary feature of any content business. But Xbox cannot afford to take Activision’s games exclusive without undercutting the basic economics of the transaction. That is why Microsoft has offered to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation from the moment this deal was announced. Xbox’s proposal and would extend for ten years— an unheard-of length for contracts in the gaming industry.

The Complaint’s reference to Microsoft’s recent acquisition of ZeniMax—a set of gaming studios acquired in 2020—has no relevance to the current transaction. After that transaction closed, ZeniMax’s first two new games were made exclusive to PlayStation for one year postlaunch. Xbox anticipates that three future titles— all of which are designed to be played primarily alone or in small groups—will be exclusive to Xbox and PCs. But consistent with its historic approach, Xbox has continued to release new updates of existing ZeniMax games such as Fallout 76 and Elder Scrolls Online on both Xbox and PlayStation, because these games are designed to be played together by broad communities of gamers on different platforms. This last set of games is the one most analogous to Call of Duty. So the ZeniMax experience cuts against the idea that Xbox would make that game exclusive. And it is not just the ZeniMax games where Xbox has taken this approach; Xbox has also expanded (not contracted) access to Minecraft, a similar multiplayer game with a large existing community of gamers who play together from different platforms, since it was acquired. If there were any remaining doubt, Xbox’s offer to put Call of Duty on other platforms on commercially favorable terms for those platforms should eliminate it.

Any suggestion that Microsoft’s statements to the European Commission about ZeniMax were misleading is incorrect. Microsoft explicitly said it would honor Sony’s existing exclusivity rights and approach exclusivity for future game titles on a case-by-case basis, which is exactly what it has done. The European Commission agrees it was not misled, stating publicly the day after the Complaint that Microsoft did not make any “commitments” to the European Commission, nor did the European Commission “rely on any statements made by Microsoft about the future distribution strategy concerning ZeniMax’s games.” Instead, the European Commission cleared the transaction “unconditionally as it concluded that the transaction would not raise competition concerns.”

 

[adamsapple]

Any suggestion that Microsoft’s statements to the European Commission about ZeniMax were misleading is incorrect. Microsoft explicitly said it would honor Sony’s existing exclusivity rights and approach exclusivity for future game titles on a case-by-case basis, which is exactly what it has done. The European Commission agrees it was not misled, stating publicly the day after the Complaint that Microsoft did not make any “commitments” to the European Commission, nor did the European Commission “rely on any statements made by Microsoft about the future distribution strategy concerning ZeniMax’s games.” Instead, the European Commission cleared the transaction “unconditionally as it concluded that the transaction would not raise competition concerns.”

thereitis.gif

 

[feynoob]

Continuing

Ultimately, the Commission cannot meet its burden of showing that the transaction would leave consumers worse off, because the transaction will allow consumers to play Activision’s games on new platforms and access them in new and more affordable ways. The relief sought in the Complaint should be denied

Microsoft does not concede the truthfulness of third-party articles and news sources quoted or referenced in the Complaint. To the extent a response is required, Microsoft denies all allegations of the third-party articles and news sources quoted in or referenced in the Complaint. Microsoft additionally denies that the Commission is entitled to any of the relief sought in the Notice of Contemplated Relief on page 23 of the Complaint. Microsoft reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this Answer at a later stage of the proceedings as permitted by the Rules. Each paragraph below corresponds to the same-numbered paragraph in the Complaint.

 

[reksveks]

It didnt last long.

Can't escape.

I did for a few hours or more, finished Plague Tale Requiem. Need to find another game to complete tomorrow.

 

[feynoob]

Now to the responding part.

Microsoft admits that different consoles have different technical specifications, including varied graphical processing capabilities; that the Nintendo Switch console allows portable, handheld use; and that the Nintendo Switch console and Xbox Series S console are less expensive than the Xbox Series X console and the PlayStation 5 console. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 33

Enjoy this one people.

 

[reksveks]

Now to the responding part.

Enjoy this one people.

Other consoles lack the high performance of the Xbox Series X|S and PS5
consoles. For example, the Nintendo Switch, which is designed to allow portable, handheld use, necessarily sacrifices computing power, which leaves it unable to play certain games that require
more advanced graphic processing. Retailing at $299.99, the Nintendo Switch is also less
expensive than the Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 consoles, both priced at $499.99. While the
Xbox Series S had the same retail price at launch as the Nintendo Switch, the graphical and
processing capabilities of the Series S are much more aligned with the Xbox Series X and PS5
consoles. The Xbox Series S enables gamers to play the same video games as the Xbox Series X,
both of which offer more graphically advanced gameplay than on the Nintendo Switch.

Will let others figure out or guess what Microsoft lawyers mean with the following:

Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 33

 

[feynoob]

continuing

Too much of this

purports to state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required to these conclusions, Microsoft denies those allegations. To the extent the Complaint is characterizing witness testimony from a trial in another matter, Microsoft respectfully refers the Court to the full testimony for an accurate and complete statement of its contents. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in

 

[feynoob]

MS defense

Microsoft asserts the following defenses with respect to the causes of action alleged in the Complaint, without assuming the burden of proof or persuasion where such burden rests on the Commission. Microsoft has not knowingly or intentionally waived any applicable defenses, and it reserves the right to assert and rely upon other applicable defenses that may become available or apparent throughout the course of the action. Microsoft reserves the right to supplement its defenses as discovery progresses.

1: The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2: The Complaint fails to allege a plausible relevant product market or markets.
3: The Complaint fails to allege a plausible relevant geographic market.
4: The Complaint fails to allege undue share in any plausibly defined relevant market.
5: The Complaint fails to allege any harm to competition.
6: The Complaint fails to allege any harm to consumers or consumer welfare.
7: The combination of Microsoft’s gaming business with Activision’s business will be procompetitive. The transaction will result in substantial acquisition-specific efficiencies, synergies, and other procompetitive effects that will directly benefit consumers. These benefits will greatly outweigh any and all proffered anticompetitive effects. 8: There will be no harm to competition, consumers, or consumer welfare because here is, and will continue to be, entry and expansion by competitors, which is timely, likely, and sufficient.

9: The alleged harm to potential competition is not actionable.
10: The Commission cannot provide clear proof that the combination of Microsoft’s gaming business and Activision’s business would restrain trade in the alleged markets for “multi-game content library subscription services” or “cloud gaming subscription services” because but-for the proposed transaction, Activision’s games would not be available on any such service.
11: The Commission fails to allege a time frame for the alleged anticompetitive effects.
12: The Commission is not entitled to relief because none of Microsoft’s conduct identified in the Complaint is actionable—independently or in the aggregate— under the antitrust laws.
13: Microsoft’s offers of binding contractual commitments to continue to offer certain titles like Call of Duty to other gaming companies, including Nintendo and Sony, for at least ten years address all of the alleged anticompetitive effects in the alleged markets and ensure that there will be no harm to competition or consumers.
14: The Commission’s claims are too speculative to support any claim on which relief can be granted.
15: Neither the filing of this administrative action nor the contemplated relief is in the public interest, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 45.
16: The Complaint reflects improper selective enforcement of the antitrust laws.

17: These proceedings are invalid because the structure of the Commission as an independent agency that wields significant executive power, and the associated constraints on removal of the Commissioners and other Commission officials, violates Article II of the U.S. Constitution and the separation of powers. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.
18: These proceedings are invalid because adjudication of the Commission’s Complaint by the ALJ and the Commission violates Article III of the U.S. Constitution and the separation of powers.
19: The Commission’s procedures arbitrarily subject Microsoft to administrative proceedings rather than to proceedings before an Article III judge in violation of Microsoft’s right to Equal Protection under the Fifth Amendment.
20: The Commission’s procedures violate Microsoft’s right to procedural due process under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
21: The structure of these administrative proceedings, in which the Commission both initiates and finally adjudicates the Complaint against Microsoft, violates Microsoft’s Fifth Amendment Due Process right to adjudication before a neutral arbiter.
22: These administrative proceedings violate Microsoft’s Fifth Amendment Due Process right to adjudication before a neutral arbiter as applied to Microsoft because the Commission has prejudged the merits of the instant action.
23: The Commission’s charges under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act are unlawful to the extent the Commission purports to apply Section 5 beyond the metes and bounds of the Sherman and Clayton Acts.

WHEREFORE, Microsoft respectfully requests that the Administrative Law Judge enter an order:

1: Denying the Commission’s contemplated relief;
2: Dismissing the Complaint in its entirety with prejudice;
3: Awarding Microsoft its costs of suit; and
4: Awarding such other and further relief as the Administrative Law Judge may deem proper.

 

[feynoob]

We might need Hoeg law or Idas response on this one.
Tons of lawyer talk, especially this part.

purports to state conclusions of law to which no response is required.

I have no clue there. If anyone knows these part of stuff, you are welcome to share with us.

 

[feynoob]

This is a bullshit chart. No "high-performance" listed!

This is MS response chart.

 

[akimbo009]

This is MS response chart.

It was a joke.

 

[Topher]

Will let others figure out or guess what Microsoft lawyers mean with the following:

Paragraph 33 of the Issues Statement?

"TOH2: Input foreclosure of rival multi-game subscription services

33. The Parties’ rivals in multi-game subscription services include providers that, for a regular subscription payment, offer access to a catalogue of games that can be downloaded to a user’s PC or console, or otherwise streamed to different devices via cloud.33"

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63494c7de90e0731a80088e7/Issues_Statement_-_Microsoft_Activision__final.pdf

 

[feynoob]

The most important part of this response is this part about zenimax games.

Xbox anticipates that three future titles— all of which are designed to be played primarily alone or in small groups—will be exclusive to Xbox and PCs

 

[feynoob]

.

 

[reksveks]

Paragraph 33 of the Issues Statement?

"TOH2: Input foreclosure of rival multi-game subscription services

33. The Parties’ rivals in multi-game subscription services include providers that, for a regular subscription payment, offer access to a catalogue of games that can be downloaded to a user’s PC or console, or otherwise streamed to different devices via cloud.33"

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63494c7de90e0731a80088e7/Issues_Statement_-_Microsoft_Activision__final.pdf

Wrong regulator but I had already copied in the paragraph that they are referring to.

Other consoles lack the high performance of the Xbox Series X|S and PS5
consoles. For example, the Nintendo Switch, which is designed to allow portable, handheld use, necessarily sacrifices computing power, which leaves it unable to play certain games that require
more advanced graphic processing. Retailing at $299.99, the Nintendo Switch is also less
expensive than the Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 consoles, both priced at $499.99. While the
Xbox Series S had the same retail price at launch as the Nintendo Switch, the graphical and
processing capabilities of the Series S are much more aligned with the Xbox Series X and PS5
consoles. The Xbox Series S enables gamers to play the same video games as the Xbox Series X,
both of which offer more graphically advanced gameplay than on the Nintendo Switch.

Assume its the bolded bit.

The denials around the relevant market paragraph are boring but ehh

 

[Topher]

Topher and R reksveks
Its about this part here.

So its not the ones that FTC published, but the ones they gave it to MS.

FTC? Thought this was all about the CMA.

 

[adamsapple]

The most important part of this response is this part about zenimax games.

Well, yes.

Starfield, Redfall, TES VI are all already confirmed as such.

We don't know when the contracts for Indy were signed, it was announced before the acquisition so it might as well be a multiplat game even now.

 

[feynoob]

Wrong regulator.

 

[gothmog]

Microsoft really should consider giving up on the Xbox console hardware brand and focus on the Xbox services brand. Their arguments would hold more weight if they actually committed to bringing gaming actually everywhere instead of some kind of Xbox/Windows trojan horse.

 

[feynoob]

FTC? Thought this was all about the CMA.

Its the ftc response.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

The FTC fucked up.

 

[Topher]

Wrong regulator but I had already copied in the paragraph that they are referring to.



Assume its the bolded bit.

The denials around the relevant market paragraph are boring but ehh

So Microsoft is denying this?

"While the Xbox Series S had the same retail price at launch as the Nintendo Switch, the graphical and
processing capabilities of the Series S are much more aligned with the Xbox Series X and PS5
consoles. The Xbox Series S enables gamers to play the same video games as the Xbox Series X,
both of which offer more graphically advanced gameplay than on the Nintendo Switch."

 

[feynoob]

Microsoft really should consider giving up on the Xbox console hardware brand and focus on the Xbox services brand. Their arguments would hold more weight if they actually committed to bringing gaming actually everywhere instead of some kind of Xbox/Windows trojan horse.

They dont have that option right now.
They would be the next google, if they do that.

 

[gothmog]

They dont have that option right now.
They would be the next google, if they do that.

Google sells hardware too so that makes little sense.

 

[reksveks]

FTC document if you want to see what paragraphs they are referring to

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/D09412MicrosoftActivisionAdministrativeComplaintPublicVersionFinal.pdf

Last bit before I go to bed, the affirmative and other defenses seems spicy but have no real comparison

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

They dont have that option right now.
They would be the next google, if they do that.

 

[feynoob]

Google sells hardware too so that makes little sense.

Google went with stadia. If MS goes like you said, they will lose their relevence.

The only reason Xbox is alive is the console.

 

[feynoob]

Did you read the entire thing?

 

[feynoob]

FTC document if you want to see what paragraphs they are referring to

http://[URL]https://www.ftc.gov/sys...AdministrativeComplaintPublicVersionFinal.pdf

[/URL]

Last bit before I go to bed, the affirmative and other defenses seems spicy but have no real comparison

This makes sense.
I was on the wrong part of the regulation.

 

[reksveks]

So Microsoft is denying this?

"While the Xbox Series S had the same retail price at launch as the Nintendo Switch, the graphical and
processing capabilities of the Series S are much more aligned with the Xbox Series X and PS5
consoles. The Xbox Series S enables gamers to play the same video games as the Xbox Series X,
both of which offer more graphically advanced gameplay than on the Nintendo Switch."

Imo Microsoft are denying

'which leaves it (Switch) unable to play certain games that require
more advanced graphic processing'

Which feels like a stretch unless you are arguing that games aren't fixed products or you can always stream.

Would be interesting to see that argument in front of a judge.

 

[feynoob]

Imo Microsoft are denying

'which leaves it (Switch) unable to play certain games that require
more advanced graphic processing'

Which feels like a stretch unless you are arguing that games aren't fixed products or you can always stream.

Would be interesting to see that argument in front of a judge.

Edit: I am confused right now.

 

[ReBurn]

So Microsoft is denying this?

"While the Xbox Series S had the same retail price at launch as the Nintendo Switch, the graphical and
processing capabilities of the Series S are much more aligned with the Xbox Series X and PS5
consoles. The Xbox Series S enables gamers to play the same video games as the Xbox Series X,
both of which offer more graphically advanced gameplay than on the Nintendo Switch."

It reads to me like Microsoft is asserting that the differences in hardware don't matter in regard to the acquisition because they intend to bring more of Activision's games to Nintendo's systems regardless.

 

[Topher]

It reads to me like Microsoft is asserting that the differences in hardware don't matter in regard to the acquisition because they intend to bring more of Activision's games to Nintendo's systems regardless.

Perhaps, but denial is a bit stronger language than saying it is irrelevant. I think R reksveks is right and we would have to hear the arguments to the judge.

 

[feynoob]

MS is very serious about the ftc.

22: These administrative proceedings violate Microsoft’s Fifth Amendment Due Process right to adjudication before a neutral arbiter as applied to Microsoft because the Commission has prejudged the merits of the instant action.
23: The Commission’s charges under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act are unlawful to the extent the Commission purports to apply Section 5 beyond the metes and bounds of the Sherman and Clayton Acts.

The entire defense is crazy. They are super mad.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Did you read the entire thing?

 

[reksveks]

Edit: I am confused right now.

Its 3 am here so I might not be the most coherent

FTC original paragraph

Other consoles lack the high performance of the Xbox Series X|S and PS5 consoles. For example, the Nintendo Switch, which is designed to allow portable, handheld use, necessarily sacrifices computing power, which leaves it unable to play certain games that require more advanced graphic processing. Retailing at $299.99, the Nintendo Switch is also less expensive than the Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 consoles, both priced at $499.99. While the Xbox Series S had the same retail price at launch as the Nintendo Switch, the graphical and processing capabilities of the Series S are much more aligned with the Xbox Series X and PS5 consoles. The Xbox Series S enables gamers to play the same video games as the Xbox Series X, both of which offer more graphically advanced gameplay than on the Nintendo Switch.

MS response to that paragraph

Microsoft admits that different consoles have different technical specifications, including varied graphical processing capabilities; that the Nintendo Switch console allows portable, handheld use; and that the Nintendo Switch console and Xbox Series S console are less expensive than the Xbox Series X console and the PlayStation 5 console. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 33

So the question is what is MS contesting from the original paragraph (Strike-through text is stuff that MS has 'agreed' is true imo)

Other consoles lack the high performance of the Xbox Series X|S and PS5 consoles. For example, the Nintendo Switch, which is designed to allow portable, handheld use, necessarily sacrifices computing power, which leaves it unable to play certain games that require more advanced graphic processing. Retailing at $299.99, the Nintendo Switch is also less expensive than the Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 consoles, both priced at $499.99. While the Xbox Series S had the same retail price at launch as the Nintendo Switch, the graphical and processing capabilities of the Series S are much more aligned with the Xbox Series X and PS5 consoles. The Xbox Series S enables gamers to play the same video games as the Xbox Series X, both of which offer more graphically advanced gameplay than on the Nintendo Switch.

But I think its mainly the bit in bold that they are contesting, the bits in italic not 100% sure what MS are saying regarding those sentences.

 

[feynoob]

R reksveks
What do you think about their defense?