Absolutely. In the absence of proof, only speculation is truly possible, and it’s irresponsible to base actual arguments on speculation.
You can say it’s possible or even probable that Capcom needed funding and approached MS and Sony. But you can also say it’s possible that Capcom needed funding, approached MS, and MS turned them down because they wouldn’t put Master Chief in so Capcom had to go to Sony instead. The former is more likely than the latter but at the end of the day they’re both hypotheticals.
I really don’t think so. I believe that Spencer meant it when he said that Sony was an important part of the industry. MS’s whole modus operandi is looking to the future and having their fingers in a lot of pies. It’s much more beneficial to them to have an even share of the market than to have total domination which invites governmental scrutiny. Basically, as long as they have Sony to point to, they can argue that they aren’t too big for the sector.
I might be off on this since it’s been a while, but I think that that line of thinking is the reason they bought a ton of Apple stock back in the day and rescued them from insolvency (I am not a business or economy expert).
Another thing I think Spencer said is that they view Google and Amazon as competition in the space, rather than Sony and Nintendo. At the time, this was pretty widely derided as dissembling by the “third-place loser”. I certainly took it that way but have come around to this perspective now that they’re more of an actual player in the field and their means of expanding their reach is clear. I’m sure I don’t need to say this to anyone here, but they aren’t looking at just the console market now, they’re looking at a much bigger base and working on the potential to have more entry points in everyone’s living room.
In that sense, they’re already behind Google and Amazon, who have surveillance smart assistants in addition to Chromecasts, Fire Sticks, Android TVs, Prime Video apps on said TVs and so on. To say nothing of them having their own competing cloud infrastructures. Better the devil you know, and I believe a strong Sony presence is in part a deterrent to those mega corporations. I could be wrong on this but I think a theoretical market with 3 strong platforms would be harder to break into than one with 2 strong platforms (assuming a dominant MS and inconsequential Sony). It would also be more beneficial to us as consumers in the long term.
It sucks for those of us who, in the short term, miss out on some things here and there. I’m pretty steamed that Deathloop might not hit Game Pass next week after already having to wait a damn year and yeah, I’d like to play FFVIIR on my platform of choice. But as much as it is a thorn in our sides, it’s also ammunition for MS. Oh no, Mr. Regulator, you don’t need to look at us at all, we play nice even though we could crush them. I think that’s why they’re so focused on “not being dicks” (to borrow a phrase) and honoring existing contracts, they want to be the teacher’s pet. A ruthless move looks much crueler coming from someone stronger than their opponent.
It also means that things like “they could just change the name to ‘Duty Calls’ and not be bound by whatever agreement exists” don’t make a ton of sense. I don’t have the legal knowledge to know if that’s even possible but I do know that nobody likes a smart-ass. Pulling a move like that would make regulators look more closely at the next deal, and MS are extremely interested in making business moves unhampered. It’s also part of the reason I think exclusivity isn’t necessarily a given in their future acquisitions.
At the end of the day, if you want to see it from a Sony v MS perspective, keep in mind that MS have the disadvantage that they want to keep Sony alive and healthy while Sony feels no such pressure. And yeah, that means MS taking some hits they don’t have to for the future payoff. That future I described is much more important to them than making a frankly small base of users happy, it would just be cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Of course Ryan is going to ask for the moon, it’s his job! He doesn’t wanna be the executive who let one of Sony’s cash cows slip away, at least not without a fight. I don’t like the way he made this point, but that’s hardly relevant.
Of course MS are willing to let Sony take more than they really should be allowed to, it makes them look better to the regulators! Reaching out with an olive branch and a compromise automatically makes you look more reasonable and they can afford to forego whatever benefits they’d be giving up.
Of course Xbox-primary gamers think this is a big crock of shit and Ryan is a hypocrite. We have and are missing out on so much because of his direct actions!
And of course PS-primary gamers are unsettled by this regardless of their affinity for CoD. It represents a change in the very comfortable status quo of “I can have everything I want with just one box” and they haven’t really had to deal with the concept of “Damn, this thing I want is on the other box”
They had better get used to that though, and in the end this is beneficial to them too. A stronger MS means more of an inconvenience to them but it also makes for a Sony that tries harder. It would be terrific if MS and Sony were deadlocked and had to continually improve their offerings to keep that equilibrium! I’m genuinely hoping that MS get there because hell, maybe Sony will take more pages out of their book, like say the ability to play their first-party games without a big hardware investment. Maybe they’ll do day 1 PC releases too, and day 1 PS+ releases too. I’d definitely subscribe for that. And MS would have to sweeten their pot to keep me interested 
As a last point, I will say that I have no patience for the people:
- who nebulously claim that acquisitions are bad for the industry without anything to back it up.
- who think that timed exclusivity is essentially harmless.
- in the press who have double standards.
