Both Microsoft and Sony do this, and pretending it's just one side is forgetting history. Microsoft isn't some innocent person in this area, either.

Further, GoW is a first-party Sony game. COD is not a Microsoft game.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/3/22417560/sony-ps4-cross-pl...

Nintendo and Microsoft had it up and running, but Sony didn't want to allow it.

People forget.

The console wars did not start with PS4.

https://www.ultragamerz.com/because-of-microsoft-gamers-didn...

Edit: Thank you for demonstrating the "forgetting history" part, though.

More stories from back then: https://www.engadget.com/2012-05-31-defiance-could-link-up-a...

You're right, they've both done it in the past, only Sony wants to keep doing it. Microsoft is saying lets get rich publishing games people love, we don't care where you play it, we're getting paid regardless and we're also looking to buy a company that has the best version of cross play available today so that we can continue to satisfy gamers where ever they are.

Also, GoW is available for PC, but not Xbox. COD will become a Microsoft game if Sony who opened this can of worms isn't willing to share their concern or prove they're not engaged in the practices they claim to be against, which they are. I don't disagree with you, but it's fairly clear that Microsoft wants to sell games and Sony wants to sell consoles that still aren't even available in most places for purchase.

Microsoft has already announced that their future major Bethesda games - Starfield and TES6 - will not be released on Sony platforms.

Today, you can. That is the argument here, isn't it? 10 years from now (or sooner), what stops Microsoft from making COD an Xbox/PC (or even just XBox) exclusive?

Unlike new exclusive titles with zero fanbase, COD is big enough to surely convince a bunch of people to buy Xbox's and subscribe to Xbox Live and what-not.

I don't even own a console - but am worried about Microsoft gobbling up game studio after game studio, game publisher after game publisher. There is a very real conflict of interest there.

Sony has exclusives, too. MSFT already said their top Activision-published titles would also be available on PlayStation, such as Call of Duty. Sony also buys studios and forces exclusivity agreements on them, too.

Could this acquisition also put Sony in a tough spot? Sure, but that's the nature of the game they are playing (no pun intended), and don't forget, there are still a ton of incredibly popular third-party titles that are available on PlayStation, such as FIFA, Madden, Fortnite, etc... and won't be exclusive to any console in the foreseeable future.

There's nothing preventing them from making game-changing acquisitions, either. Sony could acquire EA, Nintendo, or a whole bunch of other top game companies and nobody would bat an eye.

Pretty sure MS would.

They said for "10 years", to placate regulators at the FTC. What happens after 10 years?

Supporting PC players cost Microsoft money (servers, staff, etc). Xbox Live funds itself...

Cutting off other consoles would definitely force a portion of the console-gaming population to purchase a new Xbox - or at least factor very heavily into the decision for which console to buy.

There are very few games that have as large of a player base as COD. Many other FPS titles have tried, including Battlefield. None even come close - so it would not be easy for Sony to "just make their own" either.

Microsoft could endure a temporary reduction in revenue, for a long term marketshare gain/dominance and eventual increased revenue.

Xbox would become known as the console that you buy if you are into FPS titles. That is powerful.

Because the companies are already giant behemoths abusing market power, and further consolidation will only make it worse?

Turn the question around: why should it go ahead? Will it make workers or consumers better off to have even less competition?

Even if the acquisition gets the go-ahead and Microsoft is able purchase Activision, I'd rather see them grow their own intellectual property and studio infrastructure. I think it'd benefit the industry, the medium, and consumers as a whole.

You and me both, as well as millions of other games around the world. Unfortunately, investing into the unknown (developing new IP) versus the known (popular franchises) is not something investors or the stock market really like, sadly.

Because the two corporations want it to go ahead? Seems like enough reason to me.

Fortunately, big companies never lie to regulators in order to get their way, then turn right around and do whatever they want, sometimes paying a meager fine and reaping billions.

Neither Sony nor Microsoft should be trusted to do what's best for the consumer. After all, there's no shortage of people on HN who will tell you with a straight face that it's the companys' obligation to do whatever it takes to make money for themselves and their shareholders. It usually comes along with some pithy statement like "Microsoft is not a charity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

While gaming is not a major profit center for Microsoft in comparison with Azure, Office, Windows, etc...if I'm on their earnings call and hear that their subscriber base for their most popular game is about to double because they opened their services to players on another platform....I'd call that a good thing.

I'd bet a lot that MSFT has already done the economics of the deal and figured that they'd come out ahead financially even if it means supporting PlayStation COD players for the next 10 years.

Sony's self created stuff is relatively small ball compared to CoD and they have not ever made such a large purchase of a major publisher as this.

If Sony ever were to try to acquire EA or other large publisher they should be under this level of scrutiny if not greater.

I doubt Sony could afford to acquire EA or Nintendo.