I own everything, but on Xbox I now get:

Huge catalog of ABK games on GamePass
Future ABK games on GamePass
No more neutered versions of ABK games on Xbox because of Sony molestation
Possibility of games coming that ABK wouldn’t greenlight


Absolute win for MS consumers. I don’t care about the end of the industry nonsense people spew, we’ve been hearing it for a decade.

I think Blizzard is the shittiest gaming company out there, I am very indifferent towards the deal, I don't play any Activison Blizzard games at all.

Yeah, what an odd take, especially when non of SIE's existing studios have been retooled to make GaaS titles, SONY's taking a big gamble by funding new studios for entirely new IPs (3 of these gambles have fallen apart already), so they can continue taking bigger gambles and fund even bigger single player games (HZD + TLOU2 cost half a billion dollar), it's like saying making freemium games on iOS is a bad because? reasons...

As for the merger, it's not good for anyone in my opinion, however, I have been consistent in stating that it will go through, I reiterated this before and after the CMA blocked it. The stinkiest part for me has been how Sunak and Hunt running to lick Brad Smith's boots was met with applause by everyone, it's fine to feel helpless in the corporatocracy we live in, but to cheer it on? smh 

People's opinions and beliefs, you can find people in about any groups you can come up with that thinks the earth is flat, but it does not make it so. 

Yes some Nintendo fans are against it, and I'm sure even some Xbox fans are against it, but ask why and you find very little substance to the position, it mostly boils down to generalist big transaction = bad, or big actor doing transaction = bad, doing something Sony never did = bad. Have not seen credible concern with an actual logical/undeniable path to a bad outcome for any group of gamers but yet the benefits to some are undeniable.  

I disagree. In fact, in most of the world, it is essentially impossible for a business to exploit employees, if by exploitatuon you mean unreasonable treatment.  Almost everybody is free to leave their job at any time. So if they do not like the way they are treated by their employer, they can, and very often do, go work somewhere else.

In any case, I don't think that's relevant to this merger. Essentially all labor advocates support this deal.

i think, for once, you are more optimistic than me.

if you look at the other industries, i think you'd find that these acquisitions have already gone too far. the FTC doesn't seem to act in defense of the consumer or the equal market, this is even reflected in their own case against this very acquisition of ABK. i think that the judge allowing this to go through will mean that it will be easier for other companies to do the very same, i.e. Sony or Nintendo acquiring other large developers (regardless of how realistic Nintendo shelling out huge bucks for lackluster companies is, just a for-instance.) this could very well happen on the basis of stare decisis.

i think i mostly agree and understand your points made but, i don't think they will completely hold considering the slippery slope this decision has allowed. yes, i agree that consumers did not buy into XB's anti-consumer idiocies in the XBO generation thankfully, whether their decision to go for PS4 was correct or not. however, that is a different case where the consumers actually had the choice. the consumer does not have the choice in whether companies are allowed to swallow up other companies, that's where the government and law step in and as we see here, to no avail.

my fear also isn't that microsoft will gobble up more companies but that the industry in general will become more fragmented with everyone gobbling up each other. that's what happened in the entertainment industry, a sort of retaliation. i've seen several people in here say that's fear mongering but, it's only businesses business-ing. that type of behavior is nothing new.

i also do agree that the gaming industry does seem to somehow be able to reinvent itself better than other industries over time. if MS acquiring studios and somehow degrading them to the point of irrelevancy continues to happen, i do believe other actors will step in and take the place of those IPs. though, that will only become more and more difficult to replicate the more everything is consolidated.

i'm also not siding with sony on any basis whatsoever, i thought i clarified that enough in my OP. though, idk if that comment was directed at me or just in general!

This deal will be good for costumers overall. You won't be force in an eco system just to play the game and you will have more option on how to pay for the game you want to play. These gaming coming to cloud and gamepass just open the door for more customers to play the game on hardware they might already own.

This deal will also force Sony to offer more consumer friendly services and maybe add more day 1 titles on their own subscription services. Sony losing exclusive marketing right for COD means they have to invest in their own FPS and bring back their own IPs like Killzone, Resistance and SOCOM.

Microsoft wants to reach a greater audience and is able to offer lower price in order to attract a much larger pool of customers. Hence, Why I think the deal will benefit customers. Eventually, some of the IPs will be exclusive to Xbox and PC but that will only harm Sony; it actually won't harm the customers. Microsoft is already moving toward a service base system rather than locked ecosystem of console. It offer a much smaller barrier to entry to play these games. In the future you won't have to make the choice between which consoles you want to support but rather which game do you want to play. The decision of what device you play on will be up to you. ei PC, Console, Smartphone, Steamdeck, Cloud streaming, etc.

This deal will officially disrupt the market where we are officially moving away from the 5-7 games a year at $69.99 where you are expected to pay (349.99 to 499.99year) towards a monthly subscriptions service where you have access to 100 of games at $15-20 ($180-240year) and you have the freedom to opted in and out at your own convenience.

Sony is 100% against this deal not because they believe it's an exclusive play but rather a disruptor to their Sales model of charging $69.99 for new release.

COD's pricing structure is on Activision.

As far as this being a boom for consumers, or "force" Sony to bring back franchises, that isn't how it's going to work. Most consumers were getting the games Acti made anyway. If they ever go exclusive, it will be taking them away from certain players. Whether that works in their favor or not is up in the air and far out from any real discussion points.

Regarding Sony, the team behind SOCOM is closed, Guerrilla chooses to work on other things, and Insomniac has found considerable success with Spider-Man/Ratchet. Sure, they could squeeze in a Resistance game, but that isn't an antidote here. It certainly has nothing to do with needing an exclusive shooter since COD will be on PlayStation anyway and it is the only FPS that does those sorts of numbers.

This is simply Microsoft needing a competitive foot in the game (a bigger deal for Cloud than individual exclusives). I get it. It will change nothing on the larger end and it doesn't have to, but it will breathe new life into their ecosystem with Game Pass, which is what they're after. I'm not saying whether I agree with the merger or not (my input on that is irrelevant anyway), but a healthier Microsoft Studios is better for Xbox.

It was about ten years ago that Microsoft bought the Minecraft IP. Back then I thought the logical plan was to make it exclusive to Xbox. When Microsoft kept porting to more platforms, I thought their endgame was to have the first Minecraft everywhere in order to create much greater demand for an Xbox-exclusive sequel. This didn't happen either. Instead Minecraft itself got more and more updates that were available everywhere, plus spinoffs that went everywhere too.

Microsoft's strategy for consoles clearly differs from what Sony and Nintendo would have done with a monster IP like Minecraft, if they had gotten such a hold of it. But I don't think it's so much because Microsoft has a broader vision than console hardware, rather it's because they have opposing forces within the company and that results in no clear direction and the lack of consistence in their decision-making for their gaming department (and the sorry state of their first party output that has lasted for many years). The necessary contracts to even make the A-B acquisition happen secure CoD for at least ten years on PS anyway.

Making predictions for two generations ahead is incredibly tough, but right now it's looking unlikely that Microsoft will return to a strategy of selling as many Xboxes as possible. They used to do this and it came at the expense of the PC, but since subscriptions are basically the only thing that made Microsoft consistently money in gaming, they'll stick to that. So once the ten year CoD deal expires, it's improbable that CoD will be taken off PS. At that point it's more probable that Sony will have to suck it up in a deal where Microsoft either can plant their own subscription service on PS or get a cut from Sony's PS+ money. But all this is speculation. It may as well amount to not more than gamers having to use Xbox Live accounts to be able to play CoD online, without having to Microsoft a cent.

Sony does not have the money lying around to keep retaliating against Microsoft, so chances are high that Sony won't seek out a grand acquisition in the first place. Nevermind all the hurdles Microsoft already has to take with A-B. So it's not reasonable to fear that this entire affair will spiral out of control where everything gets consolidated, both because of the legality and the money. Nintendo won't acquire any entire publisher anyway. Any player from China, namely Tencent, will be out of luck by virtue of the West tightening things up against Chinese companies in general. So while I do think that China has the money, I doubt that they'll be allowed to buy.

My comment about taking sides was a general one.