Well my point was that Microsoft isn't just about Xbox consoles. They have multiple segments such as their PC operating system and cloud service that benefits from gaming content. No other company has a big share in 3 platforms in the gaming space. Steam is only big on PC, Nintendo Handheld, Sony consoles, even Apple and Google doesn't have anything close to what Microsoft has. People talk about how Microsoft's gaming revenue is lower than its competitor, but that doesn't mean it's significantly lower. Sometimes it's even above Nintendo's. Most importantly, it doesn't include the revenue that benefits from PC users using Windows. 

I was baffled with how incompetent FTC was, not only they failed to mention the fact that Microsoft has other platforms and services that benefits with this acquisition, they limited the discussion to "high-end consoles" for whatever reason. Both CMA and FTC are way too obsessed with CoD, when Activision Blizzard is more than just CoD. It makes sense why, because Call of Duty is constantly one of the biggest games on Playstation. Since they limited the discussion to "high-end consoles" CoD is the main topic. I understand, Sony is the big competitor, they would suffer a lot from this acquisition. However, if you think just a tiny bit, Activision Blizzard is a third party that has huge presence in every platform for gaming. King for mobile, Blizzard for PC, Activision for consoles/pc/mobile. Combined with Microsoft's market presence, you don't need to be Einstein to understand the potential threat to the market share. Microsoft already has lots of capable studios and assets including Bethesda and fcking Minecraft man. 

This discussion shouldn't be about consoles, it should've been the whole video game market. Phil Spencer said multiple times their focus is on mobile too. There's a new law that will allow mobile users to use third party stores. Perhaps Microsoft would aim there as well. With this leak, it was revealed they are(were) also interested in Valve and Nintendo. They clearly don't give af about competition, they just want to be market leaders through the power of money. This is seen with the Xbox plan to be market leaders by 2030. Remember, Microsoft is a gigantic company, gaming isn't even 20% of their whole revenue. They already have plenty of gaming market share, why should they become leaders in that market too? At the very least, Activision Blizzard should be their last acquisition in the gaming space, but you know they won't stop here. 

Oh yeah, I don't care how it sounds, I care about what makes me happy versus everyone else, I could not care any less about what other people want, I'm not here for a long time, but indeed, a good time. But yes, we know Microsoft is not going to buy Nintendo, would be super dope tho 

This. I couldn't care less about other people or the industry. Buy them all as far as I'm concerned and bring everything to gamepass. 

PC gaming to Windows revenue is an extremely weak link, it's not because PC gaming is almost exclusive to Windows that MS still dominates PC OS, it's because Windows still dominate PC OS that user and developers often disregard other OS as gaming choice. If you were to block such transactions on this you would not protect the gaming market, you would only try to punish MS for their High OS share without actually making a case related to the OS market which is DoA in any court case. If regulators think MS OS share is an issue by all means they should go and challenge MS on that exactly.

Steam is only big on PC

Steam never tried to push anywhere else either

even Apple and Google doesn't have anything close to what Microsoft has

Lol, yes they do, and they also generate way more profits out of similar revenue

from 2021 

However, if you think just a tiny bit, Activision Blizzard is a third party that has huge presence in every platform for gaming. King for mobile, Blizzard for PC, Activision for consoles/pc/mobile. Combined with Microsoft's market presence, you don't need to be Einstein to understand the potential threat to the market share.

King has been mentioned to be worth up to $50b in this transaction alone. So what? Microsoft has virtually 0 presence in mobile so that market is not at risk of anything.

You seem to mix efforts to increase market share/revenue and threats to competitiveness together. It does not matter if MS moves up the ranks in terms of share/revenue, authorities are not there to protect a specific ranking. All that matters is the market is still able to compete afterward. And on that, All 3rd parties that voiced their opinion on this said a resounding yes. Sony even said the same in internal emails but then proceeded to say no to regulators. yet the facts are this transaction changes nothing for any other ability to compete, it does not:

• Make fans of other franchises disappear or change in any way
• inhibit the ability for any other player to create and release new games for any platform and build/sustain their fanbase
• prevent any other players from making other acquisitions of their own
• prevent any other players from bolstering their offering in any way

This discussion shouldn't be about consoles, it should've been the whole video game market.

All markets that constitute the greater video game market Console have been looked at, all those were deemed not at risk by all market authorities including the CMA. the only exception was (the cloud market (CMA, EU, FTC) and console Market (FTC)). The EU fixed the issue it found in the cloud market with remedies from MS, the FTC console and cloud arguments were Judged insufficient, the console argument even triggered comments from the judge stating that the FTC is not supposed to protect market leaders but consumers, and the CMA finally got to negotiating with MS for resolutions once they found themselves the last man standing.

With this leak, it was revealed they are(were) also interested in Valve and Nintendo

What do you mean by revealed? It's not like it's supposed to be surprising or anything or expected to be any different from any other player. Both Valve and Nintendo are valuable companies is it supposed to be bad or ill-intended to value them? Quite the contrary IMO, it would be very arrogant/delusional not to value them.

They clearly don't give af about competition, they just want to be market leaders through the power of money. This is seen with the Xbox plan to be market leaders by 2030.

Yep, you clearly are confusing market ranking and market competitiveness. So Sony is the current Console market leader, is that supposed to be bad? Tencent is the current global market leader by revenue, is that supposed to be bad? Now because MS tries to best their competitor for the top spot it's supposed to spell doom? It's a market, competitors are supposed to try and best each other. It's like you expect a good guy chess player to let competitors beat him and if he tries to actively seek to win is not a good guy anymore. Being pro-competitiveness isn't supposed to be defined by your will or not to seek the top spot but by your respect for other players and the playing field that enables anyone to try and thrive.

Remember, Microsoft is a gigantic company, gaming isn't even 20% of their whole revenue.

So? MS's size certainly increased the amount of scrutiny they got from regulators but in the end, size does not matter only the impact in relevant markets.

They already have plenty of gaming market share, why should they become leaders in that market too?

Why not? should they not always try to compete better? Sony has even more share is it too much? should they give those away because they should be happy with less, the likes MS has now?  Why should this market have special rules or be viewed through some weird lens that protects the status quo as the right thing and normal free market behavior as bad or evil?

At the very least, Activision Blizzard should be their last acquisition in the gaming space, but you know they won't stop here. 

I don't expect them to stop, but if you look at how ABK played out it's not like we can expect this transaction scale to be frequent either. It was ABK who went to MS to be bought, after all, not MS seeking them out or trying to do a hostile takeover.

There's also the fact that MS wants to bolster GamePass first and foremost and it's not like they can expect an ever linear growth with acquisitions. There's a point where adding more content would not really raise the appeal anymore. With that in mind, I don't expect MS to fund such acquisitions forever without getting/analyzing the ROI of both Zenimax and ABK transactions over many years. 

That said what if EA comes knocking looking to be bought just like ABK did? Do you expect MS to simply say no I'm satisfied? Of course not.

So all things considered I do not expect MS to actively seek any such large acquisitions from now on but of course, when a rare opportunity presents itself I don't expect them to turn it down on the spot. At the same time, I do expect them to remain actively seeking more targeted acquisitions able to fulfill some lacking output for Xbox like studio making games in genres they don't already cover. 

You really think what you wrote? Do you really think it's okay for one company to become leaders in multiple markets? Is it okay for big companies to continue acquiring medium to smaller sized one? You missed a lot of my point, but I'm not gonna go in detail anymore. The problem isn't market ranking or whatever, it's the fact that Microsoft isn't doing much that helps the industry with their money. Instead they are using it to buy others to reach that status and earn more money. How can people defend this? They aren't even trying to create something on their own, these acquisitions should be to help small studios financially at the very least. Use them for more innovation. The Xbox is always the least innovative and uninspiring. That's all I gotta say

Nintendo could indeed accept a legitimate port to PC if Sega prolly bought them back the development cost and exclusive licensing of these 2 games.

But hey, just be happy these 2 games exist to begin with thanks to Ninty money and good relationship with Platinum Games.

People always say this. but if it was in the devs heart to make them 2 games at some stage they would of done it at some point anyways. I can bet you anything without Nintendos money we would of ended seeing them games at some point anyways.

Yes, they wouldn't sell enough. The reasoning is two-fold:

1. Your example of Monster Hunter Rise concerns a game that was known to not be exclusive before it launched on Nintendo Switch. By default, this results in people holding out for ports.

2. The part of my previous post - that you snipped - already explained why it's not just about software sales. Nintendo's games fuel their own ecosystem where they profit off every aspect from it. This means that if they went third party, they'd have to make enough money on other platforms to not only offset what they'll lose on their own platform, but make significantly more than that. So, for example, selling 20m copies of Mario Kart 8 on PS just wouldn't cut it. It would have to be way more than that, because the first drawback of selling Mario Kart 8 on another platform is that Nintendo will have to give away 30% of the profit of their game. So I'd put the magnitude we are talking about in the case of Mario Kart 8, the amount it would have to sell on other platforms at full price to be financially worth it when you also consider all the negative impact on Nintendo's own ecosystem, at well north of 100 million copies.

With 130m Switch consoles already sold, the amount of people holding out for Nintendo games on other platforms can be safely said to be very low.

...

Regarding another leak: LOL at Phil Spencer's judgment of the state of the Xbox Series before its launch. With all the things being revealed with these leaks, it's no surprise whatsoever that Xbox gets manhandled so much. Xbox is in a distant third place and has no exclusive games and will get no exclusive games; it's the story of a company who believed that it can rewrite the rules of the console business.

Regarding big companies buying smaller companies: I am not holding the opinion that consolidation is bad by default. If a mediocre or bad company gets bought by a better company, then it's fine because management will be taken over by better people. This is why Microsoft buying Activision is okay, because Microsoft has a better track record as third party publisher than Activision. But if a good company gets bought by a worse company, then it's a bad thing. Hence why Microsoft buying Nintendo is such a terrible thought, because Microsoft's track record as first party is pathetic in comparison to Nintendo.

Well Im excited for Days Gone 2 then since the developers wanted to make it, but Sony said no.

The industry doesnt run on heart points.