Almost as funny as you saying it. The CMAs concerns are the consumers, any other conclusion is just your own biases. Their focus was on all concerns in the preliminary phase 1 stage and Sony being one of the very few competitors meant those concerns matched and would just be investigated.
The multiple mentions of Sony specifically, 57 times I believe, more so than consumers shows their primary concern is the current market leader. It was not my bias that had them mention Sony that many times. It was not my bias that had an EU regulator talking about keeping CoD on 'his PlayStation'. It was not my bias that tried to define Nintendo as a non console gaming competitor. We want to believe this is a totally fair and impartial process but the evidence isn't looking that way currently.
You're really funny because you're throwing shit at the wall. You think the regulators concerns were in the video card market with the ARM acquisition?
In a market where nvidia's competitor AMD has a bigger SoC share after their ATI acquisition?
I think that ARM who has a multitude of patents on chip design could actually be seen as a real input to a chip design that should not be in the hands of a single competing chip company. Activision does not provide a CoD as an input to video game development. The entire premise is absurd but again being worried about console prices going up because of MS acquisitions is equally absurd.
"Video games" isn't the market. Just as 'chips' isn't the market. You want to argue that MS is third in console sales, fine. You want to argue it's third in multigame subscriptions, you'd be wrong, if you want to argue it's third in cloud gaming you would be wrong. You define it as 'video games' for MS but very specifically 'video cards' for nvidia even though ARM isn't about video cards at all and intel and AMD exist.
How video games are accessed is the market. The means can be through console, PC, mobile, cloud, and subscriptions. How one pays for access is not separate markets. MS is clearly third in console sales. They appear
third in subscriptions based on the latest PS+
numbers which has PlayStation at 45 million vs 30+ Nintendo and 29 (Sony's numbers) or 25 million MS's numbers. Cloud gaming would be a subset of the 29/25 million number because only Game pass ultimate users gets that feature. Regardless MS is not leading those metrics either. PC? MS again is not leading. Mobile? MS is nonexistent. MS is clearly not a threat to competition in video games and anyone who is being honest knows this.
To argue that Nvidia having sole control over ARMs patents not putting them in a monopolistic anti-competitve position for chip design is just as unbelievable as MS owning Activision keeps PlayStation from competing in video games. Chip patents are a real input to chip design, a game is not an input to game creation. The whole argument is not worth the discussion.
I can but then I'd end up with you making not very well thought out responses about why you think MS is the best and can do no wrong.
You can't because you'd look as ridiculous as Sony trying to convince regulators they are looking out for consumers and not their own business interests and market position. CoD is not an input to Sony's ability to make games. It's totally OK to acknowledge their arguments are weak you can still be a fan.
You don't even know who spoke out, a lot stayed anonymous in cloud and subscriptions but again I'm sure Sony being one of the very few competitors in the console space makes them the main one by default.
Since you like to claim the Nvidia ARM acquisition is so similar you can compare and contrast the companies that spoke out against that deal vs this one. It was obvious there were anti-trust issues with the ARM deal that are clearly absent here but that would require an honest take and has been lacking in your comparison. Nintendo is one of the few competitors in this space. Surely you can provide a comment from them indicating how this transaction hurts their business? There are only three consoles after all. Interestingly enough Nintendo will gain from the acquisition not lose. Shocking.
What a well thought out argument. Based on what, your feelings?
Reality is what it is based on. Feelings are the only way someone can conclude that MS owning Activision could cause game and console prices to rise. Feelings are making you think Nvidia /ARM is similar to MS/ Activision in any meaningful way. The reality is that out of the regulatory bodies that have actually reached a final conclusion on this acquisition NONE have come out opposing the deal. I suppose they can also tell there is nothing illegal here. My feelings are quite powerful indeed.