And if it's true.
The disconnect may be that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with trying to “put [our competitor] out of business”. That’s the very nature of competition. To be unlawful, the regulator (or plaintiff) has to tie the desire to an illegal restraint (or other “unfair” competition.)
— Richard Hoeg (@HoegLaw) June 20, 2023
Welcome to capitalism. Companies are trying to gain over their competitors all the time, folk are fine when Sony tries to do it but not (apparently) Microsoft, Lol. Even so, Matt Booty has no power in this respect since he only manages the Xbox Game Studios (not Zenimax/Activision-Blizzard) or Xbox's larger business strategy, or decides what is/isn't exclusive. Could have been just as likely that he was shit-posting in an email, Lol.
It wasn't brought up by CMA/FTC/SAMR/EC and was dismissed by the Democratic Judge because it is nothing. I feel like if Xbox's goal was truly to put Sony out of business then their strategy over the past few years would have been a lot different, snatch Minecraft away from PS, rip up those Sony exclusive contracts (buy out clauses), way more timed exclusive moneyhats, probably not release on PC, etc.
CoD will crater without PlayStation, it simply makes no sense to ignore the countless public surveys on the matter. In the Judges, Law and Regulators mind, ability is more important than desire, because desire doesn't mean ability to do so. So this is either a twisted interpretation from the Gamers Lawsuit lawyer or silly comment but ultimately nothingburger from Booty.
And I'm moving on now from commenting on this because there's a reason why the Gamers Lawsuit was widely considered a joke even before this, Lol.
