[manuelabeledo]

"Competition" assumes that the market is the same. It is not.

A good example would be cable TV, and the introduction of videogames and streaming services. While the latter both are technically competing with cable TV, prices didn't change for the better.

[FredPret]

It is the same market. The entertainment market. People don't buy toys, games, cable, streaming, or movies. They buy something fun to do with their time. All these things are competing in the same market.

Cable TV didn't come down in price or go up in quality, and so it is losing subscribers in droves.

Supply and demand at work.

[manuelabeledo]

> It is the same market. The entertainment market.

That's a bit like saying that dildos aren't so popular because people chose to watch porn online.

The "entertainment market", expressed as "anything to do in your free time", is unquantifiable, because it would include anything, from drinking alcohol to traveling to the Philippines, to driving around in circles. And if you cannot define its boundaries, the movement of goods and services cannot be calculated either.

In this case, physical toys aren't that popular anymore, because a change in societal preferences in a certain age range. People "in the market" for physical toys are "less". Hasbro wouldn't be competing with videogames, because people buying videogames would have no interest at all in physical toys.

Competition to Hasbro toy products is coming mostly from generic manufacturers. Go to a Target store, and take a look at how many parents choose random crap, instead of branded toys.