Support NeoGAF

[PaintTinJr]

I'm sure her peers in the competition regulator discord are giving her plenty of supportive emotes. She'll be fine.

The game in the US works the way it works, just like anywhere else. The FTC's power is intended to be limited based on the separation of powers outlined in the US constitution. The FTC is supposed to ensure that competition is fair inasmuch as it doesn't break the law. It's not supposed to try to block acquisitions based on ideology.

Lina Khan has painted a target on her own back by trying to rig the game herself. She's moved to structure the FTC in a way that makes it difficult and expensive for the people and organizations her commission sues to seek due process under the law, one of the fundamental rights granted by the US Constitution. Her bid to limit the agency's accountability and expand its power has caused Congress and the Supreme Court to take a closer look. Now she's opened the commission up to legal challenges and will have to spend budget defending her ideology, making the commission less effective overall. There's no reason to feel sorry for her. She's not a damsel in distress. She's under attack because of her own actions.

I think you misunderstand why the world generally adopts capitalism. It isn't because it is perfect, just the least objectionable solution to commerce and needs many safe guards by legislation applied on top.

The US constitution is the supreme guidance of legal ideology in the US (AFAIK) and trumps capitalism and sub-laws like the old 1914 anti-trust law they mention in the cnbc interview- that is out of step and inadequate - that you are using to project her having some ideology incongruent with US law (US Constitution).

At the heart of all modern democracies is the need provide a society with fairness and equal opportunity for citizens enshrined in law, the US constitution enshrines those rights AFAIK - as a Brit with minimal knowledge of the US system - and the crux of the problem is that sub-laws to the constitution have empowered companies to undermine the constitutional rights of its collective citizens concentrating the majority of wealth and power to a handful of US companies that are able to make further moves with anti-trust outcomes - the breakup of AT&T being the last real defence of the US Citizens rights IMO.

Khan and her fellow enforces are merely defending the constitution by defending US citizens against anti-trust, even if those methods and actions are at odds with the sub-laws or state laws that have been subverted to defend companies actions to grow to be worth trillions of dollars over the last 50-70years.

The technical arguments matter far less than the over arcing moral argument of what is best for the majority of citizens, because that is what the US constitution is supposed to defend and was intended for. Not companies and not the top 1% wealth distribution in a critical state IMO and only getting worse with these anti-trust moves.

 

[HoofHearted]

So reading through this morning with my coffee and the latest sub threads are …

Lina is too ugly to do her job correctly, CMA will feel bad and reverse course again and block the deal…

And….

Microsoft can't make headway in this market because they don't make big moves or deliver quality games, therefore ABK is immediately doomed post acquisition ?

Anything else? At least I have some comedic material to read each morning here ….

 

[Sanepar]

So we are back to the deall will be blocked?

 

[modiz]

So we are back to the deall will be blocked?

There is no "we". Every regulatory body so far greenlit the deal because considering the actual law there is nothing to outright block the deal, and the same will apply to EC and CMA.
Don't read too much into forum posts here, the hopium of the deal getting blocked will stay until the very last, but that does not mean it will have any right to exist.

 

[harry mason 1989]

The deal will be blocked
Sega will buy activision
Please trust my source guys
Thanks
Goodbye

 

[reksveks]

The revenue percentage that gamepass has is meaningless in trying to find if it's profitable. Most of the rest of the revenue is going to be hardware and mtxs. Very little of it game sales. I suspect even right now GP revenue is above premium game sales on xbox.

Definitely the case.

So we are back to the deall will be blocked?

Not sure what post/article you are referring to. Not much has changed but think the consensus is that it will get through the CMA with some behavioural remedies.

 

[adamsapple]

The deal will be blocked
Sega will buy activision
Please trust my source guys
Thanks
Goodbye

 

[Thirty7ven]

Yeah, about that LOL

I wonder what Sony is really going to do when MS takes CoD away from PS

Hoping to see it happen to be honest. Think Xbox fans are in for a rude awakening when that happens.

 

[FalsettoVibe]

Are you serious? We've been through this circus for more than a year now, and to but it bluntly, this is a really dumb take.

That's the reason why market authorities exist. If blocking COD from PS by market leader Sony will lead to SLC or foreclosure of Xbox, then the market authorities won't allow Sony from blocking it.

Sony could 100% remove it.
Sony 100% will not remove it.

 

[feynoob]

New Zealand delayed their decision to June 9th.

 

[feynoob]

Hoping to see it happen to be honest. Think Xbox fans are in for a rude awakening when that happens.

Like Sony would be stupid for that to happen.
This will impact both systems.
Sony will lose money from COD sales, and MS will lose PS sales from COD.

There is no win other than fanboys clamoring about this news online.

 

[Varteras]

I have to get this off my chest. When I was a kid, I though he said, "Mastiff Terrier"! I was always so confused. It took me 20 years to one day hear that line again and realize how fucking stupid I was.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Like Sony would be stupid for that to happen.
This will impact both systems.
Sony will lose money from COD sales, and MS will lose PS sales from COD.

There is no win other than fanboys clamoring about this news online.

Well people want the status quo shaken up, that would do it. I wouldn't mind seeing COD decline as soon as possible, because it's military porn garbage.

 

[feynoob]

Well people want the status quo shaken up, that would do it. I wouldn't mind seeing COD decline as soon as possible, because it's military porn garbage.

People who want that have no clue how business is being conducted.

It will have severe consequences on the game for long jeopardy.

 

[adamsapple]

 

[Varteras]

Well people want the status quo shaken up, that would do it. I wouldn't mind seeing COD decline as soon as possible, because it's military porn garbage.

I like porn. I enjoy explosions. I eat garbage. You and I are incompatible. I hope you find what you're looking for. I'm sorry. It's not me. It's you.

 

[Thirty7ven]

I like porn. I enjoy explosions. I eat garbage. You and I are incompatible. I hope you find what you're looking for. I'm sorry. It's not me. It's you.

Sometimes it lasts in love but sometimes it hurts instead.

 

[Topher]

So we are back to the deall will be blocked?

We are? What happened?

Not sure what post/article you are referring to. Not much has changed but think the consensus is that it will get through the CMA with some behavioural remedies.

 

[ReBurn]

I think you misunderstand why the world generally adopts capitalism. It isn't because it is perfect, just the least objectionable solution to commerce and needs many safe guards by legislation applied on top.

The US constitution is the supreme guidance of legal ideology in the US (AFAIK) and trumps capitalism and sub-laws like the old 1914 anti-trust law they mention in the cnbc interview- that is out of step and inadequate - that you are using to project her having some ideology incongruent with US law (US Constitution).

At the heart of all modern democracies is the need provide a society with fairness and equal opportunity for citizens enshrined in law, the US constitution enshrines those rights AFAIK - as a Brit with minimal knowledge of the US system - and the crux of the problem is that sub-laws to the constitution have empowered companies to undermine the constitutional rights of its collective citizens concentrating the majority of wealth and power to a handful of US companies that are able to make further moves with anti-trust outcomes - the breakup of AT&T being the last real defence of the US Citizens rights IMO.

Khan and her fellow enforces are merely defending the constitution by defending US citizens against anti-trust, even if those methods and actions are at odds with the sub-laws or state laws that have been subverted to defend companies actions to grow to be worth trillions of dollars over the last 50-70years.

The technical arguments matter far less than the over arcing moral argument of what is best for the majority of citizens, because that is what the US constitution is supposed to defend and was intended for. Not companies and not the top 1% wealth distribution in a critical state IMO and only getting worse with these anti-trust moves.

What are you even talking about? This merger isn't about the foundations of capitalism and democracy. It's about video games.

You said it yourself. You're a Brit with minimal knowledge of the US system. And it's clear that you know very little about how US law and the US Constitution works. Lina Khan isn't defending democracy by consolidating power and removing anyone from the FTC who would challenge her authority. She's trying to get as close to being autocratic leader as possible. People in Britain may be comfortable with autocratic government agencies but people in the US are not. That's why she's under fire.

Like it or not, the federal court system has affirmed that legal entities are afforded legal rights and due process under the law. Unless Khan can prove that this merger is illegal she will not be able to prevent it. That's the way this system, created by democratically elected representatives, is structured.

 

[Godot25]

So we are back to the deall will be blocked?

Why?
FT is claiming that CMA will approve the deal. And CMA was hardest regulatory body to get through. EU shown their willingness to let this deal pass and FTC is joke at this point.

If CMA will approve, this deal is going through.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Receipts on that one mate? I doubt your ratio is correct for your claim but on raw turnover it doesn't seem correct.

Mobile revenues are something like 65% of global games gross figures. Source

i know is not correct. it was just to illustrate the point the point that in console, one gamer spends more money than one mobile gamer

 

[PaintTinJr]

What are you even talking about? This merger isn't about the foundations of capitalism and democracy. It's about video games.

You said it yourself. You're a Brit with minimal knowledge of the US system. And it's clear that you know very little about how US law and the US Constitution works. Lina Khan isn't defending democracy by consolidating power and removing anyone from the FTC who would challenge her authority. She's trying to get as close to being autocratic leader as possible. People in Britain may be comfortable with autocratic government agencies but people in the US are not. That's why she's under fire.

Like it or not, the federal court system has affirmed that legal entities are afforded legal rights and due process under the law. Unless Khan can prove that this merger is illegal she will not be able to prevent it. That's the way this system, created by democratically elected representatives, is structured.

You are making allegations as fact, that are merely opinions. From the cnbc interview it is clear her intention is to defend competition, no more, no less, and in a job that only exists for her as long as the administration that put her forward for the job lasts. So any acquired power isn't for her, but for the DoJ/FTC to defend the public by stopping, reversing or deterring anti-trust actions.

Unless you are going to disagree with me, and say the constitution's primary purpose isn't to serve the citizens of the United States democracy, and educate me on why that is, then everything else you said is just word play, to justify the negative impact of unbridled capitalism on the majority of American's that the FTC/DoJ have a responsibility to protect from anti-trust.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Some people really think the U.S system should continue to go the path of "competiton is whoever has the most money to buy the market" instead of creating a playing field where huge companies are forced to spend their money on creating product.

 

[DeepEnigma]

PSN and trophies wouldn't even exist if not for XBL and achievements. Sega started online console gaming, but MS made the single username across all games that became the standard. The PS3 didn't even launch with trophies, that didn't come until the 2.40 FW the following year.

Charging for online would not have either.

 

[Varteras]

Charging for online would not have either.

Not to mention, I'm not exactly sure we should be giving props to the creation of something that has encouraged such degenerate gaming habits as achievement/trophy hunting. I was playing games I didn't even want to play or suffering through parts of games I wouldn't have bothered with. Took me 10 years to break that habit.

 

[diffusionx]

Not going to lie, I am a little surprised MS' "we should be allowed to buy this company because we suck so bad, and will continue to suck afterwards" strategy worked.

Sony has 10 years to figure this out, if they still are dependent on COD in a decade then the entire gaming division needs to be cleaned out because they didn't do their job.

 

[Evil Calvin]

Lol, nah I don't think they'll take COD away.
I think they'll gladly take all the money they get from PlayStation players.

I guess the weird thing would be that Sony would be paying Microsoft for the marketing of the game, at least until current contract on marketing expires.

Yeah...they would get $70+ for each copy sold and that doesn't include MTX's. Then they would get new Gamepass subscribers when COD goes on that service.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Yeah...they would get $70+ for each copy sold and that doesn't include MTX's. Then they would get new Gamepass subscribers when COD goes on that service.

Actually 30% of that goes to Sony on PlayStation sales. If Ms doesn't pull the game from PS, Sony might make even more money from COD than before because they already said they will take the full 30% cut.

 

[RickMasters]

Nah, I think MS has Minecrafted COD.
They are happy to take the cash from Sony, put it free on Gamepass, which will absolutely drive people to become subscribers to it, and then all the other Activision games like Crash etc will be exclusive to Xbox.

Pretty much how I see this all panning out.

 

[ReBurn]

You are making allegations as fact, that are merely opinions. From the cnbc interview it is clear her intention is to defend competition, no more, no less, and in a job that only exists for her as long as the administration that put her forward for the job lasts. So any acquired power isn't for her, but for the DoJ/FTC to defend the public by stopping, reversing or deterring anti-trust actions.

Unless you are going to disagree with me, and say the constitution's primary purpose isn't to serve the citizens of the United States democracy, and educate me on why that is, then everything else you said is just word play, to justify the negative impact of unbridled capitalism on the majority of American's that the FTC/DoJ have a responsibility to protect from anti-trust.

Do you take everything that every bureaucrat says at face value? Or just this one?

It's not my opinion. What's happening at the FTC since she took over is well documented and doesn't support a "just trying to defend competition" position. In reality it's been her attempting to redefine competition based on her personal ideology and removing everyone in the FTC who doesn't fall in line with her personal agenda. But the law defines what anti-trust means in the US, not agencies like the FTC and DOJ. These agencies are supposed to take their findings of fact to the courts and advise Congress on changes needed to law, not supplant those agencies by creating their own courts and laws. You're setting it up like she's doing the right thing for the right reasons, but she's actually doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. Makes sense, though, as you live in a country that's more comfortable with government authority controlling more aspects of your life.

When it comes to the Constitution you clearly have no idea what it means. Freedom in the US is based on a system that aims to protect citizens from the tyranny of government by limiting the control that government can exert over us. That's how the Constitution serves citizens. By giving citizens a level of freedom and autonomy that you can't seem to comprehend. Getting away from controlling autocracy is the entire point of the US Constitution.

Practically, so far no regulatory body has found that enough harm to competition will occur to outright block this acquisition. It could still happen. The process isn't finished yet. If it is blocked it likely won't be by the FTC because independently blocking mergers and acquisitions is not a power they have. Only the courts can do that here.

 

[sainraja]

The 'huge development army' makes games that will sell at retail on Xbox and on Steam...easily enough to cover development costs for well received AAA games.
Take Forza Horizon 5, for example. It's sold millions at retail, even aside Gamepass revenue.

The weird thing with posts like this is that it breaks down logically. If you're forecasting Gamepass growth slowdown or stagnation, doesn't that translate to a relatively rosy retail picture?



Huh? They've already uncoupled their content from Xbox hardware years ago. You can play Xbox games on PC, and stream via xCloud. No Console needed, and significant growth opportunity.




Cloud isn't just a play for mobile, though. You can stream on laptops, Chromebooks, tablets, TVs, monitors etc. Target is for people to play console games - xbox games - without hardware, anywhere they go. Why compare to Android or iOS mobile games?




They don't need mobile content to grow or work. Where did you get that idea from?



If Gamepass growth targets aren't met, Microsoft will do what everyone has been doing for decades - simply sell games in stores and digital storefronts.

"People who don't subscribe to GamePass won't buy Starfield or Fable" is a weird assumption indeed.



They'll be getting that day one if the Activision acquisition goes through.

Why do most of your posts read as: "All is well at Xbox. There is nothing to worry about. Xbox does not need to change anything about what they are doing."

They're not acquiring A&B because everything was just fine lol.

 

[DarkMage619]

I am putting the question to you. I am an Xbox customer, Xbox have mismanaged themselves for 22 years, why should I have to accept that? It is not my issue.

I think the mismanagement conversation is predominantly on a few studios. 343i in particular. They have recently removed most of the management of that team and it has been restructured. They have recently delivered that latest update to Halo Infinite in time and the features that should have been there at launch have now all be provided. We'll see if the next season arrives on time but MS did the major things that studio needed.

You really do struggle to read. I will just state again that regularity is not subjective.

You said 'great games'. That is absolutely subjective. But now you are all the timing. Great games take time to make. Sure it would be fantastic if amazing games came out every day but even Sony and Nintendo delay titles.

This year MS has been releasing games at a regular cadence and I believe they have released more first party games than their competitors. This is one of the reasons why MS has been acquiring more studios in the first place because last generation had so few that is was obvious why their cadence was what it was.

In fact I'd also suggest that you post more about your experiences and thoughts on the games you like because you don't do it often, if at all.

Why do you care what I play? Why if you don't like MS would you spend time arguing with people who like their games and services? If you find happiness in other ecosystems you'd probably enjoy talking to those people even more and speaking of your shared love for whatever that platform is.

Not true.

You obviously don't know your gaming history. Sony never faced any serious competition when they entered gaming and MS faced PS2. It's not even in the same stratosphere. 20M vs 150M the final result. Thankfully MS didn't quit then either.

No one's fault but their own.

OK. Well this current leadership is destorying the meme of 'Xbox has no games'. That's what I care about. Keep on looking at the past. I'm going to watch the showcase next month and play the games they'll be releasing in the near future.

 

[DeepEnigma]

You obviously don't know your gaming history. Sony never faced any serious competition when they entered gaming

 

[ToadMan]

1) They would need to find a legal excuse to do so, both parties probably have contractual agreements to each other. Microsoft/ABK would definitely sue the MO.

Good point.

2) Not sure if we would have the figures to see the impact but it would definitely harm the profitability of playstation.

Totally agree. I wasn't suggesting Sony would or should do this - more pointing out the flawed analysis of the CMA - content sells platforms.

But going beyond that, CMA analysis implies that MS and Sony will exist in a symbiotic relationship when it comes to revenue from COD... that seems reasonable.

Which leads us to the conclusion that the net result is the status quo as it is today. If Sony and MS are happy with their relative positions then the status quo is good for them I guess - whether that is good for consumers remains to be seen.

 

[Godot25]

Some people really think the U.S system should continue to go the path of "competiton is whoever has the most money to buy the market" instead of creating a playing field where huge companies are forced to spend their money on creating product.

What?

System that US built for itself is secondary. Point is that under current "how things works" system, FTC can do little to stop this merger.
And Khan thinks that she can whine how little power she has and by that convince lawmakers to do something about it.

But she is doing it really badly. Nobody is going to care if Microsoft will get ABK because outside of "big tech bad" There is literally no chance that this merger will create monopoly and anything close to monopoly and even industry peeps said that there are almost no negative effects of this merger. Outside of Sony. And gaming isn't essential product where you can clearly point to negative effect of mergers like for example if two companies making an insulin will merge and monopolise the market and then increase the prices of insulin.
She just picked her fight really badly if she is trying to prove some kind of point. She is getting kicked in almost every major case and that will even more weaken the FTC going forward.

And the fact that regulators like CMA/EU which are know for being harsher than FTC are probably siding with Microsoft is proof how little negative effect this merger will have on games industry.

 

[Banjo64]

.

Forget the console element, why can't they make good games with the same regularity as Sony and Nintendo?

 

[Ozriel]

Why do most of your posts read as: "All is well at Xbox. There is nothing to worry about. Xbox does not need to change anything about what they are doing."

They're not acquiring A&B because everything was just fine lol.

That's just you projecting, isn't it? Or at least, failing to properly parse what I'm saying. Because I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the response you quoted that says 'everything is just fine' or 'Xbox does not need to change anything'.

There's a very wide space between 'Xbox is executing perfectly' and 'Xbox is doomed to become third party in a few years'.

 

[Ozriel]

Forget the console element, why can't they make good games with the same regularity as Sony and Nintendo?

...Because they screwed up their first party setup during the late 360/Xbox one era and have only just repaired the pipeline for quality and quantity. With the number of studios they now own, we should at the very least see a step change in output. Depending on their ability to execute, of course.

 

[ToadMan]

I think first and third party are going to become dated terms.

Yes I think you're right. The lines are blurred now already.

I personally never cared much about the name on the box, just the content on the box but we can't forget those first parties historically produce some of the highest quality content. Despite that, clearly the box itself is becoming less relevant to MS now and in the wake of this acquisition the custom hardware is a tiny element of their gaming revenues.

 

[feynoob]

Can someone tag me once this deal gets approved?
My supervisor is out for the rest of weekend for holidays, and I can't use my phone on my free time.
I am afraid that I am gonna miss the fun.

 

[feynoob]

If people are stuck on quality games between Sony/Nintendo and Microsoft, you need to look at their studios vs MS studios.

All this gibberish won't mount to anything if you can't understand the underlining issue.

 

[DarkMage619]

...Because they screwed up their first party setup during the late 360/Xbox one era and have only just repaired the pipeline for quality and quantity. With the number of studios they now own, we should at the very least see a step change in output. Depending on their ability to execute, of course.

Fair assessment. I also noticed that many of the X360s big games were just temp exclusives like Mass Effect where MS did not own the studio. This shows why MS tends to now avoid timed exclusives and actually purchase the studio. This will ensure future releases for their platform which is important in a era where a game might be on your platform but the sequel will not. There should be a clear difference in game releases with their current studio roster. We are seeing some of that now. June's showcase should shed additional light.

 

[feynoob]

Fair assessment. I also noticed that many of the X360s big games were just temp exclusives like Mass Effect where MS did not own the studio. This shows why MS tends to now avoid timed exclusives and actually purchase the studio. This will ensure future releases for their platform which is important in a era where a game might be on your platform but the sequel will not. There should be a clear difference in game releases with their current studio roster. We are seeing some of that now. June's showcase should shed additional light.

But that doesn't change the fact that MS couldn't foster a good exclusive library during their stay.

MS managed to get bloodborne and demon souls.

 

[ToadMan]

Are you serious? We've been through this circus for more than a year now, and to but it bluntly, this is a really dumb take.

That's the reason why market authorities exist. If blocking COD from PS by market leader Sony will lead to SLC or foreclosure of Xbox, then the market authorities won't allow Sony from blocking it.

The authorities have no power to force a platform holder to accept content.

At the very least Sony has to honor the marketing contracts they have with Activision and which afaik run until 2026 (might be wrong about the exact duration).

Then it would be a gigantic self own as they would lose the sales from CoD, some revenue from PS+ Essential (since CoD is the most played game there) and just send some free customers to MS. I really don't see why they would do that.

There's no way anyone can take this level of hyperbole seriously.

I always love reading the « you should be mad at MS, why aren't you mad? » argument though.

Marketing contracts would include clauses forcing the platform holder to host the product for sale? I guess it's possible, but I can also imagine this is a scenario netither party envisaged when the marketing deal was signed.

Sony wanted the rights to "drive engagement' with PS platforms, and ABK wanted the agreement to offset risk and drive revenue. Difficult to imagine either party was expecting MS to become the controlling party of COD. Then again, if that was a consideration, I'd also assume that the agreement has exit clauses to account for changing competitive environments.

Fatally wound? lol

A company which spends $70bn only to have that investment rendered much lower value by the unilateral act of a competitor, would indeed be fatally wounded. Share price tanks, senior management dismissed. That's what the CMA concluded when they said there is "no plausible scenario" for MS to foreclose COD on PS.

If you credit the CMA analysis that is....

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

have only just repaired the pipeline for quality and quantity

 

[ToadMan]

Sony COULD do that, but regulators might step in and prevent it. It wouldn't be a very financially wise decision for them anyhow. That would be a very large sudden loss in revenue and could very well lead to the same consequences Sony claimed to fear in their battle over it.

Yes you're right. I was only pointing out the backwards logic of that CMA analysis, not suggesting Sony could or would do this.

MS didn't buy ABK only to let Sony put it's foot on their throat - but that's what the CMA has concluded.

The far more likely scenario is that Sony continues to bolster its live service capabilities and offerings. In addition, Sony will try to make deals with any companies creating anything remotely in competition with Call of Duty to heavily market those games and possibly get some kind of exclusive perks or availability. They will probably take every opportunity to reduce CoD's presence while losing as little revenue as possible.

Well possibly. But again, if you accept the CMA analysis, then Sony and MS end up in a symbiotic relationship. If... If the CMA is correct, actually we just get more of the status quo because both companies are dependent on each other.

No need for Sony to reduce marketing or minimise COD, and no need for MS to lose cash foreclosing. The more things change.... etc.

 

[ToadMan]

Owning Activision doesn't suddenly become a liability if CoD can't be sold on Playstation. CoD would still be profitable, just not as much.

The "losses" refers to revenue lost from not selling on Playstation.

Losing possible revenue is not equal to a net loss. Microsoft hasn't stated that making CoD exclusive would result in their ruin, just that they wouldn't make as much money.

Return on Investment.

 

[Chukhopops]

Marketing contracts would include clauses forcing the platform holder to host the product for sale? I guess it's possible, but I can also imagine this is a scenario netither party envisaged when the marketing deal was signed.

Sony wanted the rights to "drive engagement' with PS platforms, and ABK wanted the agreement to offset risk and drive revenue. Difficult to imagine either party was expecting MS to become the controlling party of COD. Then again, if that was a consideration, I'd also assume that the agreement has exit clauses to account for chang

It's very possible that MS cannot add CoD to GamePass before the end of the marketing agreements if the contract says so. I have no idea what's in those contracts of course.

But I personally don't believe it's the case as it would have come up in the discussion already - MS would have used that argument against the « foreclosing by price » one that Sony used.

 

[DarkMage619]

But that doesn't change the fact that MS couldn't foster a good exclusive library during their stay.

MS managed to get bloodborne and demon souls.

They had plenty of good exclusives. They just didn't own the rights to some of them. That isn't going to be a problem going forward so they've learned an expensive lesson.

 

[feynoob]

The authorities have no power to force a platform holder to accept content.

If Sony refuses COD, their shareholders will be pissed off badly.

Activision blizzard brings these amount of money to Sony platform.