I'm assuming here that the "Notifying Party" is Playstation. More importantly, they are saying outright that Exclusive strategy is dependent on bringing in more customers and that strategy, namely XBOX reaching a broader audience is implausible... Given that Microsoft has stated that GP will only bring in 15% and that cloud has slow adoption the following by the FTC becomes problematic.
107) The Notifying Party submits that Microsoft has strong incentives to continue making ZeniMax games available for rival consoles (and their related storefronts).105
(108) The Notifying Party explains that the profitability of a strategy to make ZeniMax games exclusive to the Xbox console would depend on a trade-off between: (i) the value of attracting new players to the Xbox ecosystem; and (ii) the lost income from the sale of ZeniMax games for rival consoles (through the related storefronts). In this regard, the Notifying Party forecasts that a significant share of ZeniMax games sales will occur on rival consoles over the life cycle of the newly released console generation. 106 Based on such a trade-off, the Notifying Party submits that a hypothetical console exclusivity strategy would be profitable only if it led to an increase in the number of Xbox users [forecast million] over the next five years, corresponding to an increase in Xbox shipments [forecast percentage] above the forecast level. 107
(109) In the Notifying Party’s view, it is implausible that Microsoft would achieve such results.
If sony is behind the scenes providing data, evidence, and market stratergies such as the above, Microsoft's lawyers have a fight on their hands to say the least. This suggests that Microsoft is willing to eat the costs from a brand which is unlikely to reach a broader audience just to hurt the competition.