Yet under the Trump administration slapping tariffs on EU was the chosen strategy. Which definitely pushed EU much closer towards more open trade and cooperation with China, till the Ukrainian war. The US can produce everything Japan or basically any country provides, but as it is at the moment US imports twice as much from Japan than it exports.

Also US basically forced NL to no longer export ASML chip making machines to China, since NL isn't really into the trade war. US can definitely force countries to do things they wouldn't do themselves for their cause. The US has a lot of influence over their allies.

Forcing Sony to lay low for a while could give MS the window of opportunity to go on a buying spree in Japan. Something which MS probably wants as Phil has repeatedly said they want more Japanese devs (probably Capcom). Sony doesn't have the funds to buy them to begin with, so they are basically forced to make exclusivity deals to deliver exclusive content consistently.

If those deals are gone and Sony is under scrutiny by the Japanese government they can make less of an objection to MS buying Japanese Devs and make all of their content exclusive.

A short but lengthy post. A picture says 1000 words. So 2000 words in this case. That's like an essay isn't it?

If it's full exclusivity for bigger titles, good chance the Japanese would not take Microsoft's money even if it's in the billions, because it would risk their IP's strength and momentum. And Xbox wouldn't benefit much from such deals because the majority of fans will be buying them on Steam, PC is the fastest growing platform. Microsoft won't go as far as to pay billions for a very small return.

I don't know if you noticed but... ABK and other acquisitions aren't preventing Microsoft from still paying for timed exclusivity for relevant games. They made a 6 month exclusivity deal for Valheim which sold 10 million as of a year ago (early access). It's arguably a bigger seller than any exclusive Sony has paid for since the PS2... but it isn't Japanese and is a new PC IP from an emerging publisher/studio, so not much is at risk here.

MS controlling ABK is a far bigger blow on Sony than moneyhatted exclusives which will nearly always be timed anyways. Playstation is too big for 3rd parties to skip, and people aren't yet grasping just how popular the PS5 really is. Giving Sony shit for their attempt to block the acquisition is flat out weird. Had they not attempted that, MS would not have extended the CoD offer from 3 to 10 years, and maybe not promised to put their games on the Switch for 10 years, and would have had an easier time acquiring their next major publisher/developers.

For the Xbox fans that were angry or pretending to be angry about the few relevant exclusives Sony is moneyhatting... Instead of cheering for MS to acquire publishers, ask them to block exclusivity deals for games that don't need it by offering better deals, and moneyhat more relevant timed exclusives like Valheim and maybe STALKER 2. Personally, I'd like to see them moneyhat/fund small and midsized games, establish new 2nd party relations, and acquire small and mid sized developers. Post ABK acquisition, MS should literally be able beat Sony in profits even if they stopped making consoles altogether. Their software alone would make them a lot more money than the entire Playstation business, but this isn't enough for Microsoft. They intend to go broader AND gain hardware marketshare at the same time. The only way for any corporation to achieve this is by acquiring several major publishers.

Both of those games are Multiplat until different.  How is that a stranglehold when it sells on all platforms including Sony.  Hell MS would then have a better case to say Sony has a monopoly on 3rd person story adventure games.  The whole subject is just really dumb.  The context of this story is that MS is stating Sony has a stranglehold within the Japanese market and can be using their dominate position to stifle competition.  Saying MS has more FPS games then Sony so they are stifling competition is really a bad take and context wise just doesn't make any sense.

MS has no more control over any genre then any other company.  Starfied cannot make another western RPG sub par or stop customers from purchasing any other western RPG.  The only thing really determine that is the quality of the product.  This is why this whole line of argument feels very forced.  Its like you have to invent something to prove a point.

To your last point, that is correct we do not know anything but that is why you raise the subject.  Shake the tree see if there is anything there.  Like we have all stated, who really knows what this is about probably will not know for any period of time but if there is something their, Sony could find themselves having to do a lot of explaining.

That is not going to happen.  This is the landscape the console space is at.  Exclusive deals, exclusive games, exclusive IP.  Everyone of these companies play the game and its integrated into the console space.  MS isn't going to not purchase any company that comes up for sale that helps them to expand their business, grow GP and subs.  Sony would purchase a publisher in a moment and who knows if any are on the table.  Sony also has the right to take advantage of any deals that drop in their lap.  I keep saying this phrase but its still relevant.  Its business.  What you want as a gamer has nothing to do with what each one of these companies want or need to grow and be competitive.  Xbox gamers could cry a river of tears over 3rd party exclusives or if Sony purchase some big Japan publishers.  Sony gamers can cry a river of tears if MS grab another studio or publisher but at the end of the day, that is what each of them will do.  A company has the right to sell whenever they please and the only thing that is going to stop it is if the impact on competition in that space is severely impacted.

It might never happen but platform-exclusivity for big titles has been much less common compared to the old days, you'd think it makes everyone a bit more happy but nope, some cried rivers over any moneyhatted Sony exclusive and are now justifying the "response" of the competition regardless of the scale of it. Gamers aren't consistent with their own little philosophies, and may adjust to whatever their favorite company does and say it's the right thing.

In the end, Microsoft is doing both unprecedented acquisitions that aren't necessary, and timed exclusives for bigger sellers than what Sony has moneyhatted (albeit for shorter periods of time), yet not many on the Xbox side hold them accountable or call Phil Spencer out on his "games should be available for everyone" bullshit. In addition to Valheim, Series XS is also getting Ark 2 as an exclusive, the sequel to another game that sold over 16 million copies as of August 2019. Where is the outrage?

The truth is... Sony's meager moneyhatting has nothing to do with Playstation's dominance or why MS is doing what it's doing. The dominance is simply the result of right decisions and a compelling 1st party lineup that complements an excellent library of multiplatform games that gamers associate with the Playstation brand. But Microsoft's fans have invented an "ethical reason" that justifies major acquisitions that should have never happened, and this will only escalate to Sony grabbing more companies and by extension making more unnecessary exclusives, and we all lose. The fanbase that would cry the loudest over a SquareEnix acquisiton would be Nintendo's lol.

That is the point right.  Its an escalation war.  Sony uses their market dominance to do 3rd party deals, MS decides to take players off the table for those deal.  Sony moneyhatted 2 games from Bethesda and was in negotiation for a third.  MS made a much bigger and better offer and took that company out of the mix.  All I keep hearing is people complain about the response but as a business that would be the response when you got the pockets.  You want better investment on your money not throw it away.  MS cannot match moneyhat deals at the same cost as Sony but they can remove successful companies from their reach who also strengthen and grow your business.  It really does not matter about the term of a agreement, its about which strategy works. There was always this chance that Sony could wake the sleeping giant because MS always had the money but it appears the time is now as publishers come up for sale.

For your second paragraph, I believe you are missing a very important business point.  You believe that Sony is making these money hat moves as meager but as a business the moves are made to sustain and keep their marketshare.  Its an advantage that Sony has and they are using it which they should. In a competitive market all business use their advantage to gain marketshare and sell their product.  I have no issue with Sony doing this because its good business.  Sony has also made purchases for good Studios because its good business to bring them under their system and continue to make exclusive games. The thing is, there needs to be no excuses made for either tactic, its good business.  

Its also good business for MS to purchase any publisher who comes to them and want to sell especially if they are successful. It would be dumb for either Sony or MS to turn down opportunity because Xbox gamers or Sony gamers are going to be butt hurt about it.  You are basically doing the same thing you say Xbox gamers are doing justifying one tactic over another because personally you do not like it.  In reality, both tactics are valid because as a business they all equal opportunity.  MS has the funds to purchase publishers and they damn well better do it if a publisher comes up for sale and their IP and products help them to expand and grow.  Sony is justified in making as many 3rd party exclusive deals as they can because they have the contacts, marketshare to do it at a price they can afford over their competitor.

Neither company is making these moves to please gamers, they make the moves as a business to sustain and grow their business.

Anything goes in the business world I'm not interested in discussing this and don't disagree with the core of your argument. I explained/justified Microsoft's acquisitions from a business perspective in my response to Chakkra which you read and quoted. Microsoft overpaying for big Japanese exclusives would be poor business, what they're doing obviously makes a lot more sense.

The gamers' reaction to it however is a separate topic. When I see too much blatant bullshit, hypocrisy, and false equivalences, sometimes I feel like pointing them out. MS's louder fans complained non stop about Sony's meager (And they're definitely meager or just shy of meager. The numbers don't lie but agree to disagree) exclusivity deals and just won't act the same way when Microsoft does it 10-100 times worse. Even excluding acquisitions, ARK 2 and Valheim are an order of magnitude bigger than the games you mentioned (Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo which both were untested new IP's from less relevant developers). From the PS360 generation onward, most platforms exclusivity deals were "fucked up" within reason. You can no longer say this with where this industry is heading. And no... it's not "Sony's fault". If someone's not happy about where things are going... blame Microsoft and Microsoft alone. The standard/fair/typical response to Sony from an "ethical standpoint" is to make similar deals.

Otherwise I get it. Ethics have no place in business, and if MS gathers that major 3rd party acquisitions is the only way for Xbox to return to relevance (provided they stick with the PC day and date approach), then it makes sense for them to take this route. It also makes sense for Sony to try to combat or challenge it.

Who said it was Sony fault but if you believe Sony did not have a part in the direction of how the games industry do exclusives then you do not know gaming history.  This was their MO when they came into the gaming space.  Tactics today are directly the results of the past, nothing has really changed.  All that has changed is that a few publisher came up for Sale, and MS took full advantage of it but developers studios left and right have been getting purchase and that will only accelerate as they all look at the bigger amount of money to be had.  Gaming is outpacing everything and is a Trillion dollar industry with mobile.  If you believe that things will remain the same, that would be wishful thinking.  Its the wild wild west now and the companies with the biggest gun gets to go home.  We already see Saudi throwing big bucks around.  I believe Apple is right around the corner.  Google will probably be making another effort and Amazon is trying to carve out their space.  Who knows in 10 years you might be wishing for these days again before the dust settles.

Come on Ark 2 and Valheim are big on PC but have no real presence on console.  At least Deathloop and Ghostwire are from very successful developer studios in the console space and their new games carry way more weight then these 2 PC games.  Even still, it really does not matter, I am talking about response from both companies.  MS has the resource to take it up a notch and as a competitor why should they not.  If you look to lock me out of games, I can go 100 times harder and take the whole company off the board.  That is what we call a big flex move.  Who knows next time, it could be Apple coming into the space and they can make even bigger flex move over MS.  

If you have read any of my post you know I have no problem with Sony response, I just believe that strategy wise they made some big mistakes.  They went all in on the COD angle and it ended up being the worse play they could have made.  I have said this from the beginning that as long as Sony made this deal about COD it was a losing strategy because MS was always willing to do whatever deal using COD.  COD was the carrot and Sony chomp on it like a champ.

When I see too much blatant bullshit, hypocrisy, and false equivalences, sometimes I feel like pointing them out.

you realize the rest of your paragraph is filled with these?

Claiming Ark 2 and Valheim order of magnitude bigger is bullshit and false equivalence they are both only 20$ non AAA game on steam (or follow up to a 20$ game for Ark 2) and are both targeting GamePass day 1. Ark 2 will also only be exclusive for the alpha release only and Valheim is only expanding on console. Both game from Bethesda were full AAA from a renowned publisher with no prior presence on other ecosystem.

Claiming Bethesda is a less relevant developers is also bullshit.

As far as I know Ark2 and Valheim are the only 2 recent MS deals exclusivity we know of or suspect of while Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo are only 2 out of many others for Sony which also make this comparison a false equivalency. 

exclusivity deals and just won't act the same way when Microsoft does it 10-100 times worse

Exclusivity deals just don't act the same when your already the market leader by a huge margin, exclusivity deals are also way more impactful per $ spent than acquisition.

From the PS360 generation onward, most platforms exclusivity deals were "fucked up" within reason. You can no longer say this with where this industry is heading.

I don't even know why you mean by "fucked up" within reason but there's no difference in the way exclusivity deals are made now then back during the 7th gen or 6th gen or even the 5th gen. The only thing that changed is MS had drastically increased the use of such for the 1st half of the 7th gen then dial them back after Kinect release, dial them back again after Tomb Raider and now seems to not target any AAA while Sony as remained pretty constant since the 5th gen on their use of such.

And no... it's not "Sony's fault". If someone's not happy about where things are going... blame Microsoft and Microsoft alone.

You realize Machiavellian is not blaming Sony for anything right? by the same token of your argument if someone happy with where things are going should they thank MS and MS Alone? There's no blame or thanks necessary MS is playing by the very same rule Sony have been playing since they joined the market with the Ps1. Sony never stopped to look at the consequence on the competition and neither should MS. 

The standard/fair/typical response to Sony from an "ethical standpoint" is to make similar deals.

I'm guessing by that you mean MS should not target big publisher because Sony never could do as much? I've seen this argument many time in one form or another and it's simply wrong, it conveniently place Sony in a spot where it decide what's ethnical or not. Sony isn't some kind of arbiter of ethics, MS actions are not and should not be limited by what Sony does, is willing to do or have the capacity to do.