Is it though?
What is interesting is that we have recently seen the CMA provisionally say they can't figure out numbers to make a case for a $2T company taking away CoD,
They don't see the financial incentive to take CoD away from Playstation. That decision in isolation results in lost revenue of over a billion, probably multiple billions.
despite they would have bought Nintendo and Sony outright already - instead- by hostile takeover if it wasn't for them being protected Japanese companies to control all of the console/PC gaming space, and we've had lots of discussion in here about degrading Minecraft.
It isn't because they are protected Japanese companies. It's because mergers or acquisitions of platform holders would be considered horizontal. Much higher issues of anti-competitive effects. Way harder to get past regulators. In fact, Microsoft tried to buy Nintendo before the original Xbox came out and it didn't happen because Nintendo laughed them out of the room, not because they were a protected company.
We haven't however discussed (AFAIK) what would happen to users switching with CoD if the day Microsoft released their next console they were able to make CoD exclusive and also publicly did the same with Minecraft and with Elder Scrolls 6 simultaneously.
There is no evidence to suggest Microsoft would make Minecraft exclusive. In fact there are 10 years of evidence that points to the opposite. Maybe there is a case to say they would make a next gen version for Xbox but not Playstation, but they wouldn't stop selling the PS5 version and as long as PS6 is backwards compatible, the effects of not having a PS6 version wouldn't sway a large percentage of players.
My guess is taking Minecraft from Playstation would similarly result in lost revenue of billions.
Foreclosing simultaneously with 3 important - 2 essential inputs - at the same time that they've acquired by chipping away acquisition by acquisition is a completely different risk and who would even thought those three IPs could all be acquired by the same company while still at maximum relevance?
Compounding effects are more likely to result in a large marketshare shift. However the risk of such a move is large. For their largest games, ones you call essential inputs, ones that generate a large chunk of their revenue, to cut that revenue in half... probably more than half, in hopes you get enough new users to make up that lost revenue, that's high risk.
It's not only risky because of lost revenue, such a move would open up the door to losing relevance. Such a drastic drop in player base leaves the door open for something to take it's place. Losing the Playstation userbase but also damaging your IP's impact.
Thinking about that, if the CMA don't block this deal with those inputs on the table, then it seems even the CMA/EC regulation is woefully inadequate to block $2T companies' avenues to anti-competitive actions
But.. lets say it works. They make CoD exclusive, they make Minecraft exclusive, they make some 3rd party agreements to have Fifa or Fortnite exclusive for a window. And all these actions absolutely decimate Playstation. Regulators like the FTC hold the right to undo acquistions. I'm sure they'd pursue that action if these actions resulted in the foreclosure of their strongest competitor. So on top of the risk of exclusivity resulting in lost revenue of billions, there is also the risk of that strategy being so successful that it is deemed anti-competitive and Microsoft's gaming division gets broken up.
More likely, they'll slowly shift marketshare over by making Gamepass a great value. Leaving their top money makers everywhere, and selectively making must have single player games exclusive (TES 6, DOOM, Avowed, etc.)
That slow drip will be less risky and more effective in the long run I think.
) at the time.