Where do you stand on Microsoft buying Activision/Blizzard?

[LurkerJ]

RolStoppable said:

LurkerJ said:

(...)

As a leftist, I am against corporate consolidation. I think most level-headed gamers think it's bad until MS decided to buy studios left and right and console wars entered the equation.  

Obviously, the usual counter points since the acquisition has been announced are still being used to justify this have been the same. SONY money hatted timed exclusive, SONY paid third parties to prevent games from making it to the xbox platforms. SONY is doing this and that..... yeah, and I see your point on how this is wrong and shouldn't continue to happen, however, the question becomes; 

• how is the solution to objectionable practices is an even bigger objectionable practice?

and it doesn't stop at this acquisition, we all know this, this is not some conspiracy theory, Microsoft has been vocal with their unhinged intents to buy even more publishers and that they would stop at nothing. How many studios they need to own before we go, erm, wait a second... 

... let's discuss this (now that regulatory bodies have made the matter discussable, even though, I still think the merger is inevitable). 

Since you've decided to highlight your key point in bold letters, we should first ask ourselves if this premise of yours is actually true in the first place. Because up till now, all you have are assumptions that run contrary to the facts of Microsoft's acquisitions.

We do know that Sony's practices have been all about taking away games from other platforms, just like Microsoft's (timed) exclusive garbage they did happily partake in in the past. But Microsoft's acquisitions have not followed this pattern of taking away desirable games from other console manufacturers; what actually happened is the opposite, because Nintendo consoles got included whereas they were previously left out. This was true for Minecraft and will be true for Call of Duty as well. Add to this that these IPs didn't/won't leave PlayStation either.

So the key question is this:

How exactly are Microsoft's acquisitions a bigger objectionable practice than Sony's deals of the past and present?

Granted, Microsoft is an evil corporation with a stained reputation that was well earned. But in gaming their actions have improved in comparison to what they've been before when they played Sony's game by Sony's rules. Therefore your premise is plain false and doesn't work as an appeal to the morality of gamers.

Furthermore, Sony's acquisition of Bungie works much like what Microsoft intends to do, with existing IPs being promised to remain multiplatform. This new reality seems to have similarities to the Cold War and nukes where two fierce competitors possessed deadly threats, but neither of them ever used them because they both knew that they would lose more than they would gain by using them. So what's more likely than Microsoft pulling games from PlayStation is that both console manufacturers will try to put popular IPs under their control while keeping them available to gamers regardless of platform, for the sake of having that threat to retaliate if the other should choose to try something. And in all of this, Nintendo and PC gamers seem to be winning, because they'll get to have more games on their platforms than before due to both Sony and Microsoft playing the goodwill game in hopes to pull Nintendo and PC gamers to their platforms and services.

Has everyone missed announcements like the outer world 2, Redfall, Hellblade 2, Starfield, Avowed? Phil's all but confirming the elder scroll 6 as xbox exclusive? the fact that Microsoft initially promised Call of Duty would remain on PS for three years before stretching it to 10? 

If you don't want to engage with my question because you think I don't have enough proof that MS will weaponise these acquisitions, then that's fine. But to ask me a question in return that we already know is based on a false premise is a bit odd, ain't it?