It just makes sense.
For what concession can regulator even ask towards the market leader? It does not make sense and go against any economic theory. It is like Spotify making concessions to Apple if they buy some music company. Or Amazon making concessions to Disney over MGM.
P.S Now that I think about - no company - Netflix or Disney - complained about Amazon buying MGM despite Amazon owning cloud infrastructure unlike them.
I would even argue that the annualized fps market isnât COD alone. Just because other fps arent releasing new games annualy, does not mean that they arent releasing new content annually. Any fps that continues to annually release content should be included in said market as selling games is not the only way to accrue revenue. You cant tell me that selling DLC, or new season passes does not count as new annual products. They would be considered as such in any inudstry like tv/movies.
I am pretty sure FTC wonât even care about COD IP at all.
Even if the FTC defines COD as something extremely narrow like âAnnual Military FPSâ and say COD is 100% of the market, that would place MS at 0% of the market. MS acquiring COD doesnât change that particular market in anyway. I think they would have to find a way to define it where MS owns like 50% and Activision owns 50% or something combined above 70%.
But CoD is moving away from the annual release, becoming a every other year, heck under Microsoft if any one of the CoD studios needs more time. They would get a year, pushing it to every 3 years once in a while.
True, I mean even the next year ABK openly stated that they have no plans for a regular release or something.
I agree, but I think COD will still have market concentration in that case.
Would it? You have things like Destiny and Apex, heck I believe you can even argue a game like GTA would qualify for this category.
annual
wellâŚ
We all know the rational approach. Thing is there are many other interests involved, as political ones.
I just admire your spirit.
But even the political stances can only create annoyance at best but thatâs all to it.
The regulatory bodies have literally nothing on this acquisition. Even as laymen, we could choose ten posters on this message board and absolutely obliterate any legal argument they put forth.
If this goes to court with FTC wonât it take years to close the deal ? Years of Xbox being in purgatory acquisition wise while competitors buy up other companies 
Saw some people claiming that Microsoft wonât fight over the deal with the regulator to retain their preferred position / good reputation with USA government.
But whatâs the point of the reputation or maintaining it if you canât pass the deals you want?
No, should be resolved within months. The FTC does not have the power to just hang up acquisitions for indefinite times harming companies.
If the EC or CMA approves, AKB and MS renegotiate to close, as the US one would simply be a matter of time.
As we all discuss the FTC blocking things, I think its very noteable that Microsoft got a 20 billion dollar acquisition through during Lina Khans time at the FTC. This is more software that could be bundled with their operating system and it would have been a substantially easier acquisition to block in my opinion.
You mean Nuance?
Yes
The thing is that Nuance concerned mainly B2B and stuff like that - unless it involves big marketshares (like Illumina where FTC lost which is funny) - goes unnoticed. No much media attention, difficult to win brownie points from the public.
Not to mention, I doubt that there are usually many companies so openly opposing the deal. Aside Nvidia/ARM, what other acquisition had so much rabid opposition from anybody?