[CBarkleyU]

> This means any concession that MS gives out end up feeling like handouts to the market leader, which just feels strange to me.

I don't find this to be the case at all. SONY is market leader in consoles because they've been doing a better job. Microsoft cross-funding their way into a monopoly wouldn't make MS decision making any better, would it?

As an extreme example: Imagine MS buying out all major game studios in 2013 (they certainly have had the money to do it). You -- as the consumer -- would've either been stuck with a console that made every wrong decision, but has every game on it. Or a console made with better decisions but with no games. How is preventing this a handout to the market leader?

[Goronmon]

Unless Sony is "doing a better job" solely at selling copies of Call of Duty, then I'm not convinced that this merger is a huge threat to their market position. People aren't buying Sony consoles because of the games put out by AB.

I just don't see this merger moving the needle much on the competition between the two companies.

[CBarkleyU]

You seem to be highly unaware of the CoD bubble. CoD is selling like hotcakes and is definitely the main decider for a sizable amount of people in their console purchase. The purchase would recapture the US market in the next cycle for sure. Even if MS rebooted their 2013 fiasco.

I just don't understand how this merger would be even entertained by the FCC. The only reason MS is lagging behind Sony is because of their own incompetence (outside of Japan). Allowing this much of a cross funding to offset incompetence shouldn't event be on the table.