I can see plenty of merit to the various pros and cons of the MS-ABK merger.

I can definitely see the merit in arguments that a big pro of this merger is that it would potentially keep the console market competitive. Xbox is running well behind PlayStation and desperately needs something to help narrow the gap. Better supply of the Series X ain't it (though it'd help). While Call of Duty won't be Xbox-exclusive anytime soon, I could definitely see some fence-sitters who haven't gone current-gen yet being persuaded by the idea of the series being on Game Pass, new entries being released on it day one. We arguably need Xbox around as they're really the only real competition PlayStation has. Consoles are closed platforms, and the market is already an oligopoly, with only three companies in play anymore. It could get a lot worse if it were to become a duopoly where the remaining two players have fundamentally different offerings with little overlap. If this deal keeps Xbox in play, then I could see the merit in it.

As for the cons, I really, really, really don't like the idea of corporate mergers in general, or anything else that results in more and more economic power being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.Whatever benefits we've had, whatever great content has come as the result of mergers between entertainment companies, there's always going to be something bad to come out of these things. Somebody is going to get stiffed in some way at some point, and that somebody is usually us, not the shareholders. I can also definitely agree with concerns that this will further normalize industry consolidation.

None of these companies are our friends. They're in it for the money, full stop. MS, Sony, and Nintendo have all been guilty of doing a lot of underhanded, anti-competitive bullshit over the decades, from hyper-restrictive licensing agreements (see Nintendo in the 8-bit days) to buying out smaller companies (most of Sony's first-party portfolio is acquired studios) to the unnecessary money-hatting for exclusivity deals (too many to count).

I would prefer to live in a world where we didn't have massive corporations devouring each other left and right (or massive corporations at all), but as mergers go, this one isn't somehow uniquely abhorrent. Despite the massive dollar value attached to it, it's arguably punching well below its weight in terms of impact on the console space. Call of Duty is by far the biggest and most important part of this deal when it comes to console gaming, and while all new entries after this deal is finalized will almost certainly be on Game Pass day one, the series won't even be an Xbox console exclusive for quite some time. MS's recent acquisitions could potentially put Xbox back in the lead in North America (where it was fairly close until recently), but there is nothing Earth-shaking in this deal in regards to consoles. Europe will remain PlayStation Country and Japan will continue to largely ignore Xbox.

We can argue about the morality of this merger or mergers & acquisitions in general, but from a legal standpoint, there really isn't a good argument to be made against it under our current system. I mean, we do live in a world where in just the past couple of years both the WB—Discovery merger and Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter were both allowed, with far worse outcomes for customers and society at large than what would happen if CoD was on Game Pass.

To be fair, if part of the grounds that were used to allow Xbox to purchase ABK in the first place were that Xbox (Not Microsoft as a whole) is a relatively small player in the gaming industry, then their actions will potentially come under even more scrutiny as they can't just keep using the same excuse that they are the smallest player in the market anymore. 

Cheap games on gamepass, COD on all platforms including Nintendo, no more exclusive content for COD on playstation platforms, Diablo on gamepass possibly on Nintendo platforms too for Nintendo only gamers this is not a good thing it is the best thing to happen in 10 years.

As long as Starfield is a hit it'll happen soon I think.

Excellent contribution, as usual, shadow80. 

The funny part about my meaningless opposition is that I stand to benefit financially from this merger, greatly, and I will continue to benefit as a shareholder for years and years to come. Since I have given on up on our western politicians to represent the people, one way to benefit from the tax money these massive corporations keeps funnelling around the globe is to ironically invest heavily with them and benefit from the shares buyback programs and their unstoppable earned or unearned growth. It's hilarious to see Bobby and Satya to play down "Bad big tech" claims when their bigness is a huge part of why they get away with avoiding tax to begin with. To see them on TV slandering the FTC for wasting tax when they don't even their fair share is one thing, but for people to cheer them on for it and propagate their claims without any pushback.. Wake up? or don't, I am glad I am a shareholder and got a foot in. 

You're right that a legal point under our current system  can't be easily made, but this is by design, and an argument should be made nonetheless. It's because of the current system the FTC funding and manpower remained static for over a decade while their opponents bloated in size and power, the one they use to keep the status quo, it's a joke that was acknowledged by the American judge when she pointed out the massive difference in resources between the FTC and their opponent. 

Non of the acquisitions you mentioned would've been allowed if the system was different, when was the last time Mark innovated anything other than copying snapchat and tiktoc? yet, his businesses are surviving because Facebook, instagram and WhatsApp mergers made no sense, and if we only had one regulatory body to spare us this disaster, journalists would rally to point out how they were being irrational and anti growth. The fact the CMA was attacked and pressured publicly by politicians and journalists because Brad Smith threw a tantrum is comical, if anything, the CMA in particular doesn't get enough credits for all the good work they've been doing. 

Oh well, I have expressed my growing disenchantment with our democracies across various political threads here over the years, my growing concern for the younger generations is turning into apathy, this is nothing new, just yesterday my GP appointment was cancelled because doctors are participating in the longest strike in the NHS history, yet, the government won't even sit down with them and negotiate their pay that has been effectively cut by 35% since 2008, around 500k operations have been cancelled because of these strikes, the waiting list is hovering around 8 million patients and counting, and you still won't address this disaster that's literally getting people killed? poor doctors and patients, they don't have Sunak and Hunt on their speed dial like Brad Smith does. They would've gotten a speedy service and their needs would've been attended to like MS needs were, only if they ran a private big business and didn't pay taxes.

Mad world, it's late and I am not really going anywhere with this. Take home message; if you can't beat them, join them, become a shareholder. 

An uptick for sure, but no major correction to the current deficit. Spider-Man is going to do insane numbers and move plenty of PS5s as well.

Money hating practices are pointless, wasted money, benefits no one, I am not even sure how SIE benefits from it at this point since consumers are spending more on heavy hitters and less on everything else. If the future is subscription services, you need IPs and catalogues that are yours for your service to profitable and more attractive, what benefits did your subscription service gain from money hating Deathloop and the other flop game that I don't remember? 

Every company moneyhats in this industry hats and every company that did so has funded a flop at one point. That's the nature of the business. 

I mean I do think this will probably change the industry in the long term forever.

Much like Netflix completely changed the way people consume movie content at home.

It only means that cases should be adjudicated in light of the current law, and not someone's thoughts of what the law should be. Furthermore when those thoughts vary from one individual based on opinion and beliefs and too often only scratch the surface of all implications at hand.

I'm not saying the current laws are perfect and could not benefit from a revamp using more up to dates ideals. But those ideals should first be refined in law proposal in due form by the processes that are in place.