| SKMBlake said: That's the problem: if everything remains the same availability-wise, using the market share argument doesn't work. |
The thing is, that is not the point. The point is that Sony has market share dominance. With that market share dominance, Sony whole goal is to continue to dominate the market. Sony only reason to refuse MS deal or not throw back a counter offer is that they believe this deal will give them competition and thus they can lose market share and the current contracts they do would be refused.
The question is why is it that only Sony is contesting this deal. If you believe because of some benevolent Sony you would be fooling yourself, this is business. MS point is that the regulators are protecting the market leader who is not shy about using their market position to lock out games to their competition all the while they are making an issue of COD lock out of Sony hurting Sony as a company. MS is giving a deal that negates that point, also offer Sony a counter but of course Sony will never agree to any deal or if they make a counter it probably would be give us COD for free or something foolish like that. At the end of the day all this is posturing by both companies seeking an advantage or maintaining their advantage. I see nothing wrong with either side as everyone has a stake in this deal either positive or negative.
