I'm all for dunking on corporations. I believe we should be preventing mergers between them. There's already too much economic power being concentrated into too few hands (see the video below, which references this merger). I believe that the MS—ABK merger should be blocked as a matter of principle, and I say this as someone who mains on Xbox (though I also own a PS5 & Switch, in case anyone forgot). Just because Xbox's global market share has declined since the days of the 360 is no excuse for approval. Microsoft is an incredibly profitable company, and as an economic entity are far larger than Sony or Nintendo. What they lack in market share they make up for in financial muscle. Any time a profitable company starts pleading poverty about anything for any reason, using it as an excuse to engage in acquisitions of other companies or to have regulations cut or to prevent wages from increasing, a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted. One gaming company buying out other gaming companies, be they large publishers or smaller studios, is just them using their financial power to press their thumbs down on the scale.

But please, let's not turn this into another excuse to engage in platform warring. There's been a couple of comments bordering on it. Remember, game consoles are just electronic toys, nothing more. We don't need to get hostile towards each other over them. Also, the companies that make them aren't your friends. Not one of them needs defending.

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

Not always. A lot of exclusives on Playstation didn't need any moneyhat, they were simple fruit of relationship and past success like Yakuza and Persona. It needed MS expending money to receive the content but there was 0 barriers from Sony on they getting the content after MS gone there and paid to have what Sony was getting for free.

Yes I do, put themselves in the worst possible light while putting Sony as a big bully.

I can agree to this but it is more of a political position than this specific deal ramification and blocking a deal just because it's a big one isn't supported by the current laws and rules. 

AS of now deals must be judged by their predictable results on the market they happen into and not because of arbitrary rules based solely of specifics actor size. If the competitiveness of a market is untouched or improved by a deal however big the actors involved are then it should be allowed. 

I get that it's legal. I get that the rules have to be consistent. But just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. The U.S. never should have abandoned the Progressive Era commitment to anti-trust legislation. We're well on our way to the Gilded Age 2.0.

Actually tell me what game that MS has paid for that has not come out to another system.  I can tell you multiple games that have come to Sony that have never come out on Xbox.  The difference is that MS does not make any exclusive deals that lock out a game to a competition system.  They may help fund a game for a short period of time but that is to be expected but totally lock out, no.

You actually do not know this to be true.  No one knows besides Sony and the company they negotiate with whether or not any deal was done based on money.  Instead, lets just go by MS statement that they specifically stated that Sony make deals to lock out games to their platform and services.  If this was not true, Sony would have every opportunity to dispute it.  I always find it funny when people make a case as if Sony is some benevolent company instead of a vicious player just like Nintendo and MS.

Sony is a bully just like MS is a bully.  Sony definitely use their market dominance to obtain deals their competitors cannot. The question is if they are making those deals and they truly have dominance over MS, then they risk getting tagged on antitrust laws. 

The reason we are hear is that the EU stated a lock out of COD would be hurtful to Sony.  So if lock out deals are hurtful then the whole concept of lock out deals are not put into jeopardy.  If you are the market leader and you do lock out deals, you are effectively using your market position to harm competition.  As I stated, this line MS is going benefits them more than it does Sony.

No it isn't. The regulators and Sony have repeatedly told MS that "Nintendo doesn't count" so MS is using their own nonsense against them. Sony wants Nintendo discounted because it proves that you don't need Call of Duty to have a successful platform. But without Nintendo being included, it worsens their position because outside of the 360. The Xbox brand of consoles have been thoroughly dominated by the Playstation brand in sales. It's the definition of cutting your nose of to spite your face.

Anyone with basic knowledge of gaming knows that Sony's stance is nonsense and frankly hypocritical. Sony buying exclusives from the out set of their entry in the gaming console industry. They had no issues with exclusives, sales, and acquisitions in the past. They've been actively paying developers to keep content off their competition from Tomb Raider 2 on the Saturn (the games developed but shelved) to Final Fantasy VII Remake not being on Xbox consoles now. This situation has revealed that Sony has been paying developers not put games on Gamepass. Sony has been in leader in the console industry for most of the last 30 years. For them to go in front regulators and pretend that they some frail company that will be crushed by this acquisition is ludicrous. Especially when they are actively engaged in anti-competitive tactics themselves. 

There are a lot of games that didn't come to Xbox by MS choice, by dev choice and sure some because Sony paid for exclusivity on consoles (which are very minimal quantity if they actually exist since we never saw an agreement signed over it, Yakuza never showed before on Xbox but when MS gone there to negotiate they magically all were available on GP including Like a Dragon next gen version being timed exclusive on Xbox despise MS not helping to develop it, but Street Fighter 5 yes we do have confirmation that Sony paid to be forever console exclusive).

For games that aren't made by MS that are forever exclusive to their consoles I won't remember any, most likely because I don't even play on Xbox, although just this gen there have been plenty announced as exclusive just like Medium, powerwash simulator, etc, but if you ask me this in 2 years I will most likely have forgot they exist as they weren't noteworthy titles. And there is no dispute that in general the titles Sony paid for exclusivity have done a lot better than the ones Xbox paid.

You know that the burden of the proof is on the one claiming it not on the one saying they didn't do it.

You say only Sony and the company knows what was negotiated, but them go and say MS claimed something else. It seems like you haven't been looking the news. Sony haven't gone to social media to talk about this deal, the only time they talked anything was when MS said about the contract with Sony, all the other time they let MS say whatever they wanted.

MS is still to show any proof of their claim of Sony making any deal that specifically says anywhere but Xbox. I guess you will follow lulu mersey line and perhaps say that those titles shown on SoP yesterday Sony have paid to not appear on Xbox right?

And your generalization that if CoD being locked out (which would be ALL CoD for the rest of the time) is just as harmful as any other (even single title and/or timed for a small title) then you are reaching.

My point is pretty simple.  Sony absolutely use their market share advantage to strike deals to lock out games from competitors' platforms.  It really doesn't matter if some do it on their own.  

I am saying that MS made a claim, and we have not heard anything from Sony to disprove it.  Its not like Sony isn't quick to let everyone know MS is lying nor would Sony just let it slide, this is business.  When MS made that statement, I expected Sony to deny it but we only get silence. MS did not make the statement once.

I am saying locking out of any game is harmful, so if you are going to put COD on a pedestal, then any AAA game should be put their as well.  If we are going to play this game where its stated that any company who purchases another can make all their games exclusive, then that goes for everyone company that runs their own platform.

Last but not least, your viewpoint seems to be soly centered on your choice of console as you stated you only play on PS.  I on the other hand have always played on all the platforms.  Even today, I have a switch, PS5, Series X, PC and Phone.  I do not have a favorite, I just have games I love to play but when I look at the situation on a business level, I see no angles among any of these companies.  There are no saints here and Sony is just as controlling as MS, especially when either gets a market advantage.