CMA concerns are laughable and in the second phase should fall apart (though there were debates that in the second phase CMA rarely changes their stance too).
Obviously not regulators because they have no idea how gaming works in the first place 
Though even some folks on Twitter like Grubb even entertain the idea that the deal might be blocked so…
I am with you. MS can absolutely get another large publisher if they want to… They are still not the revenue leader and behind Sony/Nintendo with console marketshare. Even after ABK they won’t lead in either of those categories. Ppl act like it isn’t fair or right if Sony isn’t in a dominant position…
Sony would do just fine even if MS bought another huge publisher. They have great studios and PS will always be around to sell. No one even is concerned about the ABK acquisition except Sony and PS fans. Literally we have more companies defending it than against it…
This deal has actually gotten less opposition than I expected. Can anyone name another company against the deal besides Sony? I can name plenty that are defending it or nonchalant about it. So, I expect MS to continue the acquisitions and they aren’t done making big ones.
I expected no opposition. In fact I did not expect opposition from Sony because obviously Sony should have bee aware of exclusivity deals, right? Right???
True, sail to Japan 
This was always going to happen,
I agree they will continue with acquisitions but I don’t think they will go after anything over the 10 Billion range, obviously that still leaves many publishers on the table, but kinda leaves out T2 and EA.
Yeah, I am not sure what the next acquisition will be, but I don’t think they are afraid to acquire those companies or believe it would fail. They might just have targets that fill a need better. Though the one consistent thing we can count on is that pretty much everyone is always wrong lol about the big acquisitions.
They will go after whatever they want. There is a handful of companies that are bigger than 10b in the first place though.
So who is going to do it? If the deal gets blocked is because xbox will be massive in usa and other places with cod and blizzard
I mean excluding Fortnite from that is kind of wild when it might be the biggest IP there. So if looking at the list, heres who have some massive IP:
EA (Apex, Battlefield, PvZ)
Take 2 (GTA)
Sony (God Of War, TLOU, Gran Turismo, Uncharted)
WBD (DC, Matrix, Wizarding World, Mortal Kombat, many others)
Roblox (Roblox)
Hasbro (Magic TG, Transformers, D&D, My Little Pony, Power Rangers)
Amazon (James Bond)
Epic (Fortnite, Rocket League, Fall Guys)
Valve (Counter Strike)
Additionally, there are many highly popular US based IP and franchises that are owned by non game publishers such as Disney, NFL and Paramount, so I wouldnt suggest that as a clear way to deliniate competition in the gaming market.
It’s hard for me to take these arguments seriously when we start throwing out companies like Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Netflix when we’re talking publishers.
Even bringing up Tencent is a poor argument when a huge chunk of their money comes from investments where they don’t even have a controlling interest.
If these are the companies that we go to to justify why Xbox can buy EA, it should be clear how much we are reaching.
I just want Microsoft to go after Capcom while getting studios like Asobo, and IOI.
At the end of the day that would be a big mistake. Google is already a huge mobile gaming publisher. Netflix has expanded gaming and integrated directly into their offering that has over 200 million AMUs, Amazon has already pumped a lot of money into gaming and developed one of the biggest MMOs out there, Facebook basically owns the browser gaming amd VR sector and is expanding.
Also to say Tencent is a bad example when they own Riot Games and Supercell casts some major bias to your argument.
If you’re looking hollistically at the US market competition you’d also really need to start included the other international players and owners of developers and publishers. Theres literally 100s.
You cannot just limit the gaming market to a certain subset of it and then claim that buying other publishers is too much. The ability to produce games is not unique, publishers not only make the games themselves - they also partner with external developers too and so on.
Gaming market is very complex.
Which is exactly why I believe us assuming either way isn’t going to go anywhere. In the end we don’t know exactly how specific regulators will get with these things until we get to each deal.
I mean that’s true but that’s why we are always arguing. Granted regulators themselves have no idea what they are doing and also learning…
I feel like “knowing what they’re doing” is debatable depending at what angle you’re coming from. If I had the time to, I’d love to look at some of the most potentially problematic acquisitions of all time that weren’t stopped to see why those decisions were made.
For gaming going forward, we know Metaverse is being considered as a factor, we know position of power is a factor, and we know the impact on the future of the gaming industry is a factor.
Who knows when gaming subscriptions services and other factors may come into play.
One thing we know for certain though is it’s not the job of these regulators to protect competitors, but the industry as a whole.
Is Google really a huge mobile publisher or do they just make a lot of passive income from games on their store? Netflix has 200 million AMUs yet has had 10% of that in total game downloads. Amazon? Facebook?
When we talk competition here, who do you think Microsoft is competing with? Their direct competitors are Sony and Nintendo, with Amazon and Google being the future boogie men. You can argue they are competing with everyone that sells games, but you guys know that isn’t what we’re talking about here. Them buying up publishers (in excess, and I believe EA/TT to be excess) absolutely harms competition in both the console area and for future entries in subscription services.
I’m neutral on MS buying T2/EA but it’s pretty clear some of you are arguing against because you don’t want them to buy those publishers for whatever reason. Not because “anti-competitiveness”.
Not really, I just don’t think they get away with buying the two largest publishers. I’ve been advocating for why EA would be a good move forever. Ask @TheBrightestSun lol
Yes, really. One of your arguments about competition wasn’t based in reality. You argued that Facebook wasn’t a “real” competitor in gaming for MS, when FB considers itself at competitor, MS does, and so do… the regulators. Our personal definitions of competiveness don’t matter when those involved in the market and regulators think otherwise.