I didn't think you hid the fact that it's a CMA document, I just find it random to jump between discussions like that. I also didn't mean to imply that you were being malicious with how you discuss the topic at hand, if this is what it sounded like, I am sorry. I think the fact that I am on the autistic spectrum is one of the reasons why I find a lot of what I read/watch to be "too random".

• To explain myself here, I cited the CMA as a response to this line "Just like portraying CoD as the only issue with this merger" which I thought to be responding to a line in my very first post in this thread "CMA issues with the deals only revolve around CoD" in that context using the CMA is not random at all. Also you invited the use of those very material in your OP "now that regulatory bodies have made the matter discussable". 

I am not arguing on behalf of SONY, I know they chose to centre their case around CoD, I think that's a mistake because I believe titles like The Elder Scrolls, Diablo, Doom, WoW, etc collectively will have a massive impact if/when weaponised (it's literally exhausting to list the massive IPs that now MS owns). But what do I know, they seem to have gotten somewhere with FTC/CMA/EU and Microsoft themselves. 

• We agree it was a mistake on Sony part for making it all about CoD, as for the other Ips, there special only because they we are emotionally attach to those, Ips on those level and/or potential are produced every year and Sony often produce one, Horizon, elden ring, Fortnite etc. Ips are work of art they are creative and one Ips success does not spell doom on any one other.

As for MS making more concessions to help their case and it's SONY's fault this hasn't happened yet, I am not sure. Surely if that's the case both parties would've or will reach a settlement at one point, so let's see. 

• It's not that it's Sony fault to not make it happen but it clearly is not to try.

I didn't mean to cut your quote short or misrepresent your argument, I just didn't want to end up arguing against everything. But since you seem to want to hear my input regarding the fact that you don't think MS will be buying big publishers after Bethesda/Activision..... I mean, every other third party publisher is small after Activision. Ubisoft is considered tiny in comparison, Capcom and SE are small as well. Shoot me in the head if Capcom ends up being bought by SONY or MS. 

• Maybe so but even then, the way I understand it, it's wrong (by wrong I mean it's valid as an opinion but legally speaking it's a stance against all mergers and would be extremely hard to legislate on this opinion) to look at this transaction an think it's bad cause they might do another one. I judge this deal only on it's own merits and direct consequence as I would any other possible future ones.

As for me being aggressive for suggesting you're relying on MS's good will, I don't know why that reads aggressively to you. I genuinely don't get people, Apologies either way and merry Christmas. 

• Really appreciated merry Christmas to you to 🎅
• Just for precision though passive-agressive is a form of aggression but it's not the same as being aggressive. As you opened up on your condition I'll do so a little myself, my family and I had to deal with a relative with borderline personality that is always being passive-agressive and that recently wanted to do us harm cause we tried to put an end to our acceptance of the behaviour and this is still ongoing so I'm rally sensitive on this. to better identity lines that are as such, just ask yourself if what your typing are really targeted toward the argument being made rather than the one who made it or others that think the same. Normally I let go but this time there were a bunch group together and really felt attacked. ex: all those are exemple on there own and they were one after the other:
  • Sorry, I don't think you're actually convinced with your own statements,
  • they're just... too naive and I don't believe you are naive.
  • Honestly, I can't believe some are making these arguments.

I agree with people who think consolidation might be bad but at the end of the day, ABK went out looking for buyers and if MS doesn’t buy them, someone else will and the consolidation happens either way. Better MS to get them than someone like Amazon or Google.

I asked you a simple question.

If GamePass is the reason for the two biggest original MS games falling off US and UK charts in like 2 months after release, this ain't gonna propel Sony to copy their model. Also, GamePass is hardly a factor on PC sales where FH5 is doing "alright".

I didn't say they sold "bad" I said they underperformed. I'm guessing each maybe sold 3-4 million copies so far, with FH5 closer to 4 million.

Why the fuck do you keep accusing me of accepting Sony's bad practices? Two wrongs don't make a right, and what Microsoft is doing here is on a whole different scale.

It doesn't matter what Sony "wants". The fact of the matter is they've haven't done anything close to as anti-competition as Microsoft buying Zenimax, let alone ABK (when/if their content do go exclusive). Sony's paid exclusives are limited to a few games, most of which Japanese games that are practically irrelevant on Xbox, so the impact is minimal. The rest of their exclusives are primarily unpaid, shovelware, and PSVR stuff.

How much do you reckon GamePass hurts traditional sales across PC and Xbox? 30%? 50%? What do you make of Phil stating GamePass leads to more sales?

I agree with people who think consolidation might be bad but at the end of the day, ABK went out looking for buyers and if MS doesn’t buy them, someone else will and the consolidation happens either way. Better MS to get them than someone like Amazon or Google.

I agree with people who think consolidation might be bad but at the end of the day, ABK went out looking for buyers and if MS doesn’t buy them, someone else will and the consolidation happens either way. Better MS to get them than someone like Amazon or Google.

Google is a better company than MS. I would like if Google bought Blizzard, more than any Big3 really.

Google doesn't produce Hardware this would Blizzard would still be a third party. Nothing would change on gaming landscape except by the cash coming from Blizzard to Google

I'd rather have Amazon or Google involved than MS.

Ill remember both of this. So its not about big tech buying what they want with you two?. Its all about Ms not getting close to Sony?.

Why should it be about it? 

Let's say, instead of Amazon, Meta or Apple, it was Tesla or ExxonMobil buying Blizzard. Would it be an issue? Of course no, it would mean Blizzard management was going to be replaced and everything else would be business as usual 

Big Tecs, except by MS, are not on gaming market, so I wouldn't mind them buying a publisher... as long they finish there 

It would be different it, let's say, Google started an acquisition spree, starting buying Blizzard, then bought Square, Konami and Sega. If it was that the case, I would be concerned. Which is kind what's happening with MS right now...