Why are they only talking about console market shares? Game Pass is on PC as well. So how about those PC market shares?
And if Microsoft is a saint that only wants their games on as many platforms as possible, how about them Bethesda games then?

Many here have an issues with Sony and them buying exclusives but both MS and Sony have done this in the past. It's part of the industry, whether we like it or not. All these deals. from console exclusivity, timed exclusivity, console exclusive content or even adding to your service day 1, exist to try and get people into your service/infrastructure. I think money is better spent on new studios or expanding them, their own employees and their own IPs (like no one would even think twice about Sony, Nintendo or MS just commissioned games from 3rd party developers of IPs they owned).

The difference here is scale. A few million here and there is nothing and mostly just a deal/contract between 2 companies compared to MS buying out entire rival publisher.

Which is the point MS is making, yes they have done it in the past but they do not do it anymore.  Sony being the dominate market share company doing deals that lock out games to competitors hits along antitrust laws.  The problem for Sony is that once you become the dominate player in a market, the things you use to do are seen with a different light.  If there are agreements and contracts to lock out games from MS or any competitor, then they would be using their market advantage to strike these deals and be hit with antitrust laws.  

For MS, being on the bottom and having Sony regulated or even the industry regulated on those types of contracts is more in their favor then Sony.  The thing is buying a publisher or buying out a lot of devs studios, it really doesn't matter.  If this deal is stopped then MS may be setting up a case to stop anyone from purchasing any companies in this space.

As to your point of adding your games to your service day one, I totally disagree with this point.  The point of adding all your games to your service day one is because MS is a service company.  Meaning that they are not trying to be bound to the console space and the limitations of selling hardware.  MS wants to sell subscriptions and their aim is to put games on all platforms.  MS probably never going to catch up to Sony and Nintendo on the hardware front so why fight them where they are strongest.  Instead MS is trying to fight their competition where they are strongest.

On the business aspect, it takes a long time to build new studios, getting the right people and getting a game to market.  While it sounds wonderful in gamers head, to a business, the risk are way higher than just getting already established and successful studios.  

Maybe its just me but it seems like a lot of people are missing the context of what is going on.  The EU gave reasons in a nice document how MS could acquire ABK.  They did not list Nintendo, NA or the PC.  They specifically mentioned Sony and the potential lock out of COD on Sony console.  What this mean is that putting anything in that talks about anothe country would be foolish since these are regulators for the EU.  Putting anything that talks about another platform that was not mentioned as being hurt by the deal would be foolish as it does not progress your point.  The focus of the arguments should be on exactly what is being contested to limit the scope of their arguments.

So no, they should not include the PC, Nintendo or anything else that was not contested and only focus on the points brought up by the regulators in their report.

Which is the point MS is making, yes they have done it in the past but they do not do it anymore.  Sony being the dominate market share company doing deals that lock out games to competitors hits along antitrust laws.  The problem for Sony is that once you become the dominate player in a market, the things you use to do are seen with a different light.  If there are agreements and contracts to lock out games from MS or any competitor, then they would be using their market advantage to strike these deals and be hit with antitrust laws.  

For MS, being on the bottom and having Sony regulated or even the industry regulated on those types of contracts is more in their favor then Sony.  The thing is buying a publisher or buying out a lot of devs studios, it really doesn't matter.  If this deal is stopped then MS may be setting up a case to stop anyone from purchasing any companies in this space.

As to your point of adding your games to your service day one, I totally disagree with this point.  The point of adding all your games to your service day one is because MS is a service company.  Meaning that they are not trying to be bound to the console space and the limitations of selling hardware.  MS wants to sell subscriptions and their aim is to put games on all platforms.  MS probably never going to catch up to Sony and Nintendo on the hardware front so why fight them where they are strongest.  Instead MS is trying to fight their competition where they are strongest.

On the business aspect, it takes a long time to build new studios, getting the right people and getting a game to market.  While it sounds wonderful in gamers head, to a business, the risk are way higher than just getting already established and successful studios.  

MS still in fact pay to devs to have exclusives, be them permanent or temporary. 

My thoughts exactly. They don't do it anymore? They have been doing it for this whole gen, they never stopped. The only thing that differs is the length of time as MS typically goes for 6 months exclusivity rather than a 1 year or in Forspoken's case, 2 years. Some people might try to rationalize it by saying "Oh but it doesn't count because it's more of an indie game" but that's just Twitter type of posters. There are plenty of games in the last number of years that MS did exclusive deals for. 

Hell they bought Bethesda and immediately scrapped Starfield which was initially coming to PS. They were so petty they bought a 3 month timed next gen patch for Yakuza and a 48 hour stipulation that Atlus couldn't announce Persona 3/4/5 on PS and wouldn't even allow preorders for those games on PSN. 

MS complains that Sony pays for marketing deals in which they block gamepass access for a year but then goes over Sony and negotiates a gamepass deal for MLB the show which just shows how hypocritical they are. They will shake your hand with one hand but keep a rock in the other. 

Both of these companies have bought exclusives in some way and both continue to do it. So to say that MS no longer does it is absolutely false!

Sure I don't remember any game the size or scope of Final Fantasy 7 Remake or similar to be signed exclusively to Xbox (and that have much more to do with 2:1 advantage Sony have than MS not liking exclusivity, no matter how much Phil say otherwise his actions are in contradiction of it), but Medium isn't Indie imho, and there are other in similar capacity that MS have signed deals of. And yes their disengeniosity on their deals is what piss me off most. Sony go there and say something like "first on console" or similar stuff to indicate it is timed or permanent and how, MS will try to say something while hiding the truth (just like the Tomb Raider deal or the Persona as you pointed).

Over time you build sales relationships and partnerships with the companies you have been doing business with for decades.  Pretty sure the account executive from Sony that goes into Square Enix every few months with a few boxes of donuts, sports tickets, free lunch and dinner meetings, does a better job than Microsoft's account executive.  It probably doesn't work exactly like that, but I'm in sales in another line of work, and if I go into a company offer them good rates and tell them not to use my competitors it works every time as long as you give them good service and give them a good return on business.

Good relationship, nurtured with both time, results, cordiality and etc is a powerful tool that make business easier without having to go the corruption route or high expenses (when doing things right but trying to expedite it). In my company we call that leveraging our influence within ethical and legal boundaries.