Support NeoGAF

[Unknown Soldier]

Man this deal is not about now. It is about the future. This gen for Sony probably will be a Pyrrhic victory.

Whats is there chances on the long term without cod? When MS get great sub numbers on gamepass people will no go back to the model of buying games.

Sony sp games are great but are 1-2 per year. How they can compete with 16 studios?

Ms is not stopping there. They will target more pubs. If they take cdpr they will have almost all relevant wrpgs studios.

Sony need a partner. The investments they will need to do to compete on the long term are really BIG. They have 3.6bi left to spend on investments this year. MS can outbid they in any offer.

I will repeat this deal is not about 2023, 2024, 2025 or this gen. It is about the future. It is a deal to shake markets and make substantial number of players to exchange platform in a digital library era.

Later when u have the users on your platform and consolidate studios and pubs then enforce gamepass and even cloud when infrastructure is ready in enough countries.

The good news is that allowing MS to acquire ABK throws the door open for other mega deals in the gaming industry. Apple, Google, or Amazon can just acquire Sony and then it will be a fair fight when another trillion dollar tech company has the resources to race MS on speed running buying the remaining 3rd party publishers and studios.

 

[IFireflyl]

If I understand correctly, once the deal has actually closed, the threshold that the FTC needs to demonstrate to force divesture is substantive harm. That’s nearly an insurmountable hurdle, especially when the scrutinised entity is not the market leader.

And even if harm was demonstrated, MS would likely be looking at fines rather than divesture.

The CMA was always potentially more effective in that regard - as their threshold (potential harm vs actual harm ) gave them more power.

Why is the U.S. system so backwards? It makes far more sense to require regulatory approval than it does to require a court case to block an acquisition, especially since the corporation can just close before the court date and then force the regulatory to require a higher burden of proof for divesture. Corporations, specifically gigantic ones like Microsoft, literally control the playing field. The CMA, regardless of their opinions on this acquisition (because my point isn't who I side with) has the better system in this case.

 

[Sanepar]

They are still getting CoD, they just aren’t going to pay for the marketing.

No use throwing good money at bad. There’s no future in which it makes sense to invest in your competitor and become even more dependent on CoD

Best thing for Sony to do is invest heavily into Bungie and other studios to develop their own live service killer so they don’t need CoD as much, and that’s what they are doing

They didn't sign a deal I don't think we gonna see cod after this gen on PS.

 

[feynoob]

Spoiler: Positive effect of this deal

Still work on progress. Touching grass is feeling good.

 

[NickFire]

Perception is insignificant when your power as a regulator is made worthless.

There is a way that perception could actually lead to the CMA blocking this. Specifically, if they want to show the world they are on equal footing with regulators in EU and US, that would be good incentive to stand on principles. I actually thought that was going to keep them from folding until earlier this week. The timing of everything that has occurred earlier this week just made me lose confidence. Possibly for no reason of course.

I'll say this though. If CMA stands firm and blocks this, I will start calling my cookies biscuits in respect.

 

[gothmog]

Which is illegal as per anti-trust laws.

It's only truly illegal if someone is held accountable. Love or hate Khan she's not bought by the very corporations they are supposed to regulate. People are cheering for some of the stupidest shit for "free" games.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

They didn't sign a deal I don't think we gonna see cod after this gen on PS.

Then they lied under oath?

 

[Topher]

Spoiler: Positive effect of this deal

Still work on progress. Touching grass is feeling good.

Looking good, bro!

 

[jm89]

There is a way that perception could actually lead to the CMA blocking this. Specifically, if they want to show the world they are on equal footing with regulators in EU and US, that would be good incentive to stand on principles. I actually thought that was going to keep them from folding until earlier this week. The timing of everything that has occurred earlier this week just made me lose confidence. Possibly for no reason of course.

I'll say this though. If CMA stands firm and blocks this, I will start calling my cookies biscuits in respect.

MS wants to restructure the deal. CMA are the UK market regulator whose duty is to investigate and engage companies on these mergers.

Where have they folded? Doing their job means they have folded?

 

[BiohazardX95]

The good news is that allowing MS to acquire ABK throws the door open for other mega deals in the gaming industry. Apple, Google, or Amazon can just acquire Sony and then it will be a fair fight when another trillion dollar tech company has the resources to race MS on speed running buying the remaining 3rd party publishers and studios.

They can't acquire Sony, Japan gov is not going to allow that

 

[//DEVIL//]

Then they lied under oath?

I believe they said they will continue to release COD on Playstation if Sony let them, but there is no agreement as to how many years on Playstation as Sony refused to sign an agreement.

with that being said, as it has been repeated before, MS will continue to release Cod on PS if they are allowed. there is no agreement needed. Steam said the same thing ( even though Steam has a battle net and Epic store as well as MS store on the same platform, they were like "We are sure MS will release the game on Steam we do not need to make an agreement". just common sense I guess. Just like Steam, PlayStation is the biggest console platform. you will have to release GAAS and Online games on as many consoles as possible.

 

[Jigsaah]

The reality is this.

Everyone who has been following the game industry for more than a year knows this merger will hurt competition and will likely hurt gamers in the long run as Microsoft will make most if not all ABK games exclusive.

People believe the anti-trust regulators don't know much about the game industry in order to pass this deal.

This is why these misleading statistics are being presented during these court cases, they're designed to fool the ignorant. lol

And if someone responds with, "This is good for gamers because Nintendo players and many could companies such as GeForce now has access to ABK and Xbox games."

You guys wouldn't blink an eye if these games were taken off other platforms after 10 years. lol

A lot can happen in 10 years. The landscape could be completely different, with a deal like this being the catalyst to that shift. Or it could end up changing very little.

Hell, COD may be a dead franchise in 10 years. Bad management, lack of new ideas, more competitive IPs could bring about an entirely different situation.

In the short term, the deal looks positive for gamers. I don't see Playstation losing COD and there may be a chance they earn more revenue than they have been since Bobby Kotick put both Sony and Microsoft in a headlock and took a bigger cut. If things go back to 70/30 that would mean more money for Sony. That funds more AAA 1st party games, not less. I don't think people have considered this possibility.

I think it's best to focus on now and the near future. I would say anything that may happen within this current generation of consoles.

 

[Pipoqueiro]

I don’t know what this image is supposed to show as far as antitrust goes? Unless there is some cartel situation where somehow Google, Amazon and Microsoft are working together, that seems like a fairly healthy and competitive market all things considered.

if you unite the cloud with the gaming market, there is only microsoft in its current position
sure, amazon could enter this market in the future, but it would take decades to have the games catalog, without a union with sony

 

[balls of snow]

They didn't sign a deal I don't think we gonna see cod after this gen on PS.

Sony - cod deal ends end of 2024. 2025 cod goes exclusive.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

They can't acquire Sony, Japan gov is not going to allow that

Japan government isn't dumb, they won't allow one of their best domestic companies be driven to bankruptcy. They will allow Sony to be acquired if the alternative is Sony ceasing to exist

 

[Pelta88]

I'm expecting the same now. This is how I envision CMA resolving if FTC is denied their stay on appeal:

3) CMA fines MS for closing over objection. Some amount that sounds like a lot, maybe 5 or 10 million, but is pennies' to MS.

Fantasy alert or fanboy fiction?

Zero understanding of the process or the fact that the fee is quarter by quarter and to the tune of billions.

Dude is spinning around as he writes his own narrative. I might block him for sheer incompetence.

 

[Gudji]

Spoiler: Positive effect of this deal

Still work on progress. Touching grass is feeling good.

Careful with the protein powder bro wild things can happen.

Spoiler

 

[Iced Arcade]

Spoiler: Positive effect of this deal

Still work on progress. Touching grass is feeling good.

looking good! grass is good.


not going to lie... I expected you to be whiter than seagul shit lol

 

[DeepEnigma]

Why is the U.S. system so backwards? It makes far more sense to require regulatory approval than it does to require a court case to block an acquisition, especially since the corporation can just close before the court date and then force the regulatory to require a higher burden of proof for divesture. Corporations, specifically gigantic ones like Microsoft, literally control the playing field. The CMA, regardless of their opinions on this acquisition (because my point isn't who I side with) has the better system in this case.

What if I told you, the government is the largest mega corp.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Why is the U.S. system so backwards? It makes far more sense to require regulatory approval than it does to require a court case to block an acquisition, especially since the corporation can just close before the court date and then force the regulatory to require a higher burden of proof for divesture. Corporations, specifically gigantic ones like Microsoft, literally control the playing field. The CMA, regardless of their opinions on this acquisition (because my point isn't who I side with) has the better system in this case.

America is a corporate state. Our corporations control the government, not the other way around. It's served us well in terms of making us into a superpower but there's some drawbacks to our socioeconomic system. This acquisition is one of the smaller ones.

 

[Jigsaah]

Sony - cod deal ends end of 2024. 2025 cod goes exclusive.

They would go back to the negotiation before that happens. They wouldn't have as much leverage but they are still top dog. A deal would get done

 

[NickFire]

Fantasy alert or fanboy fiction?

Zero understanding of the process or the fact that the fee is quarter by quarter and to the tune of billions.

Dude is spinning around as he writes his own narrative. I might block him for sheer incompetence.

I'd appreciate it if you looked through a few more pages of this thread before suggesting that my cynicism is the product of being a fanboy. I think you will quickly assure yourself that I am anything but a MS fanboy.

But you are correct on one thing. I have ZERO knowledge about the CMA or the people working there (that I did not learn in this thread). My cynicism is based on decades of observations in the US where it feels like money wins almost every time.

Also - what did I allegedly spin by the way??

 

[Flintty]

But you are correct on one thing. I have ZERO knowledge about the CMA or the people working there (that I did not learn in this thread). My cynicism is based on decades of observations in the US where it feels like money wins almost every time.

I’m pro merger (for selfish reasons) but I can tell you with 99% certainty CMA are incorruptible on this. They will be working to the Civil Service Code, will not be taking back handers, and will most certainly resist interference from Members of Parliament.

CMA have been my biggest fear for scuppering this merger in UK, and for damn good reason.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

The reality is this.

Everyone who has been following the game industry for more than a year knows this merger will hurt competition and will likely hurt gamers in the long run as Microsoft will make most if not all ABK games exclusive.

People believe the anti-trust regulators don't know much about the game industry in order to pass this deal.

This is why these misleading statistics are being presented during these court cases, they're designed to fool the ignorant. lol

And if someone responds with, "This is good for gamers because Nintendo players and many could companies such as GeForce now has access to ABK and Xbox games."

You guys wouldn't blink an eye if these games were taken off other platforms after 10 years. lol

Depends who the gamer is and what happens.

Since your a big Ps fan of course you feel nervous MS might cut the cord.

But if your an Xbox gamer, PC gamers, cloud streamer or Nintendo gamer (with a 10 year deal), how does this deal hurt them?

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

Microsoft has a huge amount of faith in GamePass.

Pretty easy math. If Starfield being exclusive increases Gamepass subscriptions or converts people to the Xbox ecosystem at say 1 million new users, and BGS doesn't release a new game (lets say Elder Scrolls 6) for 5 years, the LTV (life time value) of the new users over those 5 years would offset the 10M lost sales on Playstation.

If 10M lost sales on Playstation really is the projected numbers for Starfield, a 70% cut of a $70 game is $49, so $490M lost sales by making Starfield exclusive. If the yearly LTV of a new customer exceeds $100, it would take less than a million new Xbox/Gamepass customers to make up the $490M in loss sales over the 5 years until a new BGS game is released.

 

[Sanepar]

Then they lied under oath?

Phil Spencer right? If he leaves Xbox leadership? How many lies of him we have? A collection right? So would be one more only.

 

[jm89]

I’m pro merger (for selfish reasons) but I can tell you with 99% certainty CMA are incorruptible on this. They will be working to the Civil Service Code, will not be taking back handers, and will most certainly resist interference from Members of Parliament.

CMA have been my biggest fear for scuppering this merger in UK, and for damn good reason.

Beggers belief people think the CMA are gonna take some backhand deal. Most of the people who think this i'm willing to bet are americans(no offense americans )

 

[aries_71]

Turkey approved the acquisition? Wasn’t that a huge ugly bird that Americans insist on eating with marmalade?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Why is the U.S. system so backwards? It makes far more sense to require regulatory approval than it does to require a court case to block an acquisition, especially since the corporation can just close before the court date and then force the regulatory to require a higher burden of proof for divesture. Corporations, specifically gigantic ones like Microsoft, literally control the playing field. The CMA, regardless of their opinions on this acquisition (because my point isn't who I side with) has the better system in this case.

Probably because it would take forever for the gov to go through it first. Some said something about 20000 mergers were done across a few years.

How would the government be able to get through 20000 deals in a timely manner?

 

[mckmas8808]

Where and when has COD been removed from PS? Which game? Which year? Which system?

I'm saying MS "WILL" remove COD from PS once the next generation starts.

 

[//DEVIL//]

They are back to court/hearing

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I'm saying MS "WILL" remove COD from PS once the next generation starts.

Maybe. Maybe not. That’s probably about 4-5 years from now pending when the new consoles come out.

The deal should hinge on what-if situation that might happen in 2027 or 2028?

 

[Sanepar]

They can't acquire Sony, Japan gov is not going to allow that

They can't acquire Sony and don't want but they can acquire Playstation.

Do u think Japan gov would prefer Sony losing all ps brand value and statying with it or selling and with money investing in other stuff?

Most of PS structure is outside Japan now.

Sony will need to decide what they want on long term. Become a pub? Their studios make money? Or they finance studios with psn and hw money? We have no idea.

One thing for sure even if Sony is stubborn and try to compete shrinking every year with less content at one point someone will buy PS Studios there is a lot of good studios there. Can be anyone.

To stay and compete it will only be possible with a partner or a mountain of loans to buy relevant content to stay in business(pubs).

 

[aries_71]

I'm saying MS "WILL" remove COD from PS once the next generation starts.

Nobody would care at Gaf. The latest COD OT official thread is not even a third the length of this one…

 

[Pop]

Pretty easy math. If Starfield being exclusive increases Gamepass subscriptions or converts people to the Xbox ecosystem at say 1 million new users, and BGS doesn't release a new game (lets say Elder Scrolls 6) for 5 years, the LTV (life time value) of the new users over those 5 years would offset the 10M lost sales on Playstation.

If 10M lost sales on Playstation really is the projected numbers for Starfield, a 70% cut of a $70 game is $49, so $490M lost sales by making Starfield exclusive. If the yearly LTV of a new customer exceeds $100, it would take less than a million new Xbox/Gamepass customers to make up the $490M in loss sales over the 5 years until a new BGS game is released.

Most people aren't going to pay for a year of GP to play those games. It will be one month then those new users dip back out.

 

[adamsapple]

I'm saying MS "WILL" remove COD from PS once the next generation starts.

Would you like to make a long-term avatar bet ?

 

[IFireflyl]

Probably because it would take forever for the gov to go through it first. Some said something about 20000 mergers were done across a few years.

How would the government be able to get through 20000 deals in a timely manner?

How does the CMA do it? Most acquisitions aren't subject to major scrutiny, and can just be hand-waived through.

 

[ErRor88]

 

[NickFire]

Holy shit Lulu is still throwing shade. Maybe she's salty that the FTC appealed. But maybe, just maybe, they got told something they didn't want to hear on the other side of the pond????

 

[mckmas8808]

It wouldn't maybe a max of 40 billion and , that's with an extreme premium of 60% Activision had a premium of 35%

I thought Take Two had a market cap of $35 Billion. I think I got them confused with EA.

 

[Topher]

Regarding the judge's use of the word "may" vs "will". Hoeg weighed in....



Below is the paragraph in question since he only quoted a single sentence. So I don't think this will fly in the appeals court. Also, Judge Corley emphasized the word "substantially" which is the crux of she is saying, that the FTC has not shown that the acquisition "will probably substantially" lessen competition. But the paragraph below also says that a "certainty, even a high probability, need not be shown".

And this paragraph strikes me as damn familiar....

"The theory of competition and monopoly that has been used to given concrete meaning to section 7 teaches that an acquisition which reduces the number of significant sellers in a market already highly concentrated and prone to collusion by reason of its history and circumstances is unlawful in the absence of special circumstances. "

Section 7 forbids mergers and other acquisitions the effect of which "may" be to lessen competition substantially. A certainty, even a high probability, need not be shown. Of course the word "may" should not be taken literally, for if it were, every acquisition would be unlawful. But the statute requires a prediction, and doubts are to be resolved against the transaction. See, e.g., United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U.S. 321, 362-63, 83 S.Ct. 1715, 1740-41, 10 L.Ed.2d 915 (1963); United States v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 410 U.S. 526, 555-58, 93 S.Ct. 1096, 1112-14, 35 L.Ed.2d 475 (1973). The theory of competition and monopoly that has been used to given concrete meaning to section 7 teaches that an acquisition which reduces the number of significant sellers in a market already highly concentrated and prone to collusion by reason of its history and circumstances is unlawful in the absence of special circumstances. See, e.g., Hospital Corp. of America v. FTC, 807 F.2d 1381, 1389 (7th Cir. 1986).

Federal Trade Com'n v. Elders Grain, Inc., 868 F.2d 901 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Federal Trade Com'n v. Elders Grain, Inc., 868 F.2d 901, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

Most people aren't going to pay for a year of GP to play those games. It will be one month then those new users dip back out.

We don't know how Starfield will do, we don't have the numbers for how many people have bought an Xbox because of Starfield or how much Gamepass will grow because of Starfield or what the subscriber retention rate will be, BUT this is a BGS game. There are people still playing Skyrim for fuck's sake. If you think people will sub 1 month to play Starfield then never invest anything ever again in the Xbox ecosystem, okay? But you're probably wrong.

 

[mckmas8808]

a lot of people here are complaining about how this is bad for Sony.

That's the exact mentality and argument case that got the FTC's case thrown out.
I'm no lawyer by any means, but i would have loved to read the paperwork analysis that the FTC had, because their oral statments in the closing were just "sony players this" and "unfair to competition because it'll go on gamepass on day 1, and thats one less PS user" meant nothing other than, the current market leader may be affected by this, while giving MORE consumers a chance to play Call of Duty.

There are a lot of points that are valid and to be concerned about over the consolidation of the Video Game market.
Saying "its bad for Sony" is not one of them. Thats the whole premise of competition and innovation.

The bolded is 100% WRONG!!!! That aint competition and it sure as heck isn't innovation. It's just throwing money at a problem that a company (Microsoft) couldn't innovate out of.

 

[Banjo64]

Regarding the judge's use of the word "may" vs "will". Hoeg weighed in....



Below is the paragraph in question since he only quoted a single sentence. So I don't think this will fly in the appeals court. Also, Judge Corley emphasized the word "substantially" which is the crux of she is saying, that the FTC has not shown that the acquisition "will probably substantially" lessen competition. But the paragraph below also says that a "certainty, even a high probability, need not be shown".

And this paragraph strikes me as damn familiar....

"The theory of competition and monopoly that has been used to given concrete meaning to section 7 teaches that an acquisition which reduces the number of significant sellers in a market already highly concentrated and prone to collusion by reason of its history and circumstances is unlawful in the absence of special circumstances. "

Section 7 forbids mergers and other acquisitions the effect of which "may" be to lessen competition substantially. A certainty, even a high probability, need not be shown. Of course the word "may" should not be taken literally, for if it were, every acquisition would be unlawful. But the statute requires a prediction, and doubts are to be resolved against the transaction. See, e.g., United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U.S. 321, 362-63, 83 S.Ct. 1715, 1740-41, 10 L.Ed.2d 915 (1963); United States v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 410 U.S. 526, 555-58, 93 S.Ct. 1096, 1112-14, 35 L.Ed.2d 475 (1973). The theory of competition and monopoly that has been used to given concrete meaning to section 7 teaches that an acquisition which reduces the number of significant sellers in a market already highly concentrated and prone to collusion by reason of its history and circumstances is unlawful in the absence of special circumstances. See, e.g., Hospital Corp. of America v. FTC, 807 F.2d 1381, 1389 (7th Cir. 1986).

Federal Trade Com'n v. Elders Grain, Inc., 868 F.2d 901 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Federal Trade Com'n v. Elders Grain, Inc., 868 F.2d 901, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

It’s funny how his stroke recovery seems to fluctuate based on how positively or negative the news on Xbox is.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Maybe. Maybe not. That’s probably about 4-5 years from now pending when the new consoles come out.

The deal should hinge on what-if situation that might happen in 2027 or 2028?

Legally, yes. Any acquisition that may harm competition or make the market anti-competitive in the future is considered anti-competitive and eligible to be blocked. This is as per the FTC and CMA laws.

 

[//DEVIL//]

Maybe. Maybe not. That’s probably about 4-5 years from now pending when the new consoles come out.

The deal should hinge on what-if situation that might happen in 2027 or 2028?

assuming COD doesn't die under MS hands in the first place lol.

kidding kidding....I think lol.

 

[Banjo64]

I wonder if Lulu could point to Turkey on a map.

 

[SlicedBread3]

Holy shit Lulu is still throwing shade. Maybe she's salty that the FTC appealed. But maybe, just maybe, they got told something they didn't want to hear on the other side of the pond????

"Market Leader".

Didn't judge Corley decide Nintendo where a direct competitor? So I assume that must be who she's referring to, correct?

 

[Heisenberg007]

Regarding the judge's use of the word "may" vs "will". Hoeg weighed in....



Below is the paragraph in question since he only quoted a single sentence. So I don't think this will fly in the appeals court. Also, Judge Corley emphasized the word "substantially" which is the crux of she is saying, that the FTC has not shown that the acquisition "will probably substantially" lessen competition. But the paragraph below also says that a "certainty, even a high probability, need not be shown".

And this paragraph strikes me as damn familiar....

"The theory of competition and monopoly that has been used to given concrete meaning to section 7 teaches that an acquisition which reduces the number of significant sellers in a market already highly concentrated and prone to collusion by reason of its history and circumstances is unlawful in the absence of special circumstances. "

Section 7 forbids mergers and other acquisitions the effect of which "may" be to lessen competition substantially. A certainty, even a high probability, need not be shown. Of course the word "may" should not be taken literally, for if it were, every acquisition would be unlawful. But the statute requires a prediction, and doubts are to be resolved against the transaction. See, e.g., United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U.S. 321, 362-63, 83 S.Ct. 1715, 1740-41, 10 L.Ed.2d 915 (1963); United States v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 410 U.S. 526, 555-58, 93 S.Ct. 1096, 1112-14, 35 L.Ed.2d 475 (1973). The theory of competition and monopoly that has been used to given concrete meaning to section 7 teaches that an acquisition which reduces the number of significant sellers in a market already highly concentrated and prone to collusion by reason of its history and circumstances is unlawful in the absence of special circumstances. See, e.g., Hospital Corp. of America v. FTC, 807 F.2d 1381, 1389 (7th Cir. 1986).

Federal Trade Com'n v. Elders Grain, Inc., 868 F.2d 901 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Federal Trade Com'n v. Elders Grain, Inc., 868 F.2d 901, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

I have one question:

Isn't the substantial lessening of competition for blocking the merger?

For the Preliminary Injunction, isn't the criteria that FTC needs to establish that there may be some harm and that it has raised enough questions to investigate the acquisition further?

 

[mayham2199]

They can't acquire Sony and don't want but they can acquire Playstation.

Do u think Japan gov would prefer Sony losing all ps brand value and statying with it or selling and with money investing in other stuff?

Most of PS structure is outside Japan now.

Sony will need to decide what they want on long term. Become a pub? Their studios make money? Or they finance studios with psn and hw money? We have no idea.

One thing for sure even if Sony is stubborn and try to compete shrinking every year with less content at one point someone will buy PS Studios there is a lot of good studios there. Can be anyone.

To stay and compete it will only be possible with a partner or a mountain of loans to buy relevant content to stay in business(pubs).

I tend to agree but one thing that I think is possible (even Jim Ryan alluded to this) is people simply leaving MS. Sure MS can buy all these IPs and studios but IP's and studios don't make games, people do. If MS starts losing the top talent in all these studios they are buying they could end up with a real mess on their hands with tons of IPs/studios and not enough talent to run\manage it all or at least do it properly.

I remember when Sony bought Bungie they paid an extra billion so the employees would stay as well. At the time I remember people were saying they overpaid and it was dumb. Looking back maybe it wasn't so dumb. Sony has been managing and running their studios amazingly well. Maybe they realized a long time ago that it doesn't matter what IPs/studios you have. If you don't have talented people running things it will all come crashing down.

I guess we will find out what happens in the years to come but MS has already shown some real issues when it comes to managing their studios. How are they possible going to continue to buy studio after studio and manage all of this properly? You could end up with all the talent leaving, starting new studios, and then MS is just left with IPs. This recently happened with The Initiative and a large amount of developers just leaving. So they have the Perfect Dark IP which everyone loves but are having trouble getting the game out because they don't have any devs.