If Microsoft either stops supporting non-MS platform or makes them 2nd class (new features first appear on MS platform) then yes, this is a huge problem.

Remember when EA bought Renderware back when tons of game studios were using it? GTA3 was written with it. Where is Renderware now?

It's certainly possible nothing will change but it's just as possible the glaring conflict of interest will influence things badly.

Thankfully confined to the dustbins of history.

EA didn't buy Renderware, they bought Criterion largely for their games studio and just happened to get Renderware as part of the package. The later versions of Renderware were, uhm, not good products so it is just as well they weren't generally available.

It may be that Sony willingly boxes out MS by going with another engine, but the games industry doesn't seem that bitter.

The good news is Havok technology may be integrated into DirectX, which would mean even small shops get cheap access to this technology. It all depends on whether Microsoft regards this acquisition as "making DirectX technology better" or "leveraging developers into preferential treatment for Microsoft platforms."

We'll have to wait and see.

It would be nowhere good news, since it will make it exclusive to MS platforms only.

Can you give a few examples of these agreements? From what I know, everybody who develops for PlayStation licenses MS Visual Studio yet there had been quite a few PS exclusive games over the years. Is this the only exception? Genuinely curious.

This sort of thing is not specific to Microsoft's gaming business. Microsoft's habit of using Windows OEM licensing as a tool to prevent computer manufacturers from shipping other operating systems (especially in the 1990s) is well-documented, for instance.

In your example, the Visual Studio licenses are in-house to the development company. There is a different set of license agreements in place regarding the technology shipped out on game discs. Microsoft is well aware there's more money to be made there than from VS licenses, so they're more flexible on toolchain/development contracts than they are on middleware and production library contracts.

I also believe MS had been sued for the OEM racket in 90s and lost so, while it might be true, it's almost 20 years later now and also, I am not sure it's a licensing contract. Looks more like a re-seller/dealer relationship.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

Come on this is getting as boring as regex. Match /(microsoft|google|apple)/i replace with "EmbraceExtendExtinguish|Shutdown|Unoriginal".