Yeah, I've seen some pointing this out on GAF as well. It seems like Microsoft are offering Xbox & ABK games onto GeForce Now as part of that deal, and they are offering those games to Nintendo platforms (guessing Switch 2) for a 10-year period.
On the one hand, that is actually an interesting development because it's something I felt MS would try to do going forward regardless if the deal's approved or not. And that's in going in a fuller 3P role. Not by phasing out Xbox hardware, but by doing things like making specific licensing deals (including Game Pass & xCloud ones) with other platform holders, both for streaming and native availability. Meanwhile, turning Xbox into a series of gaming-centric NUC mini-PCs and I would venture opening them up to running Windows and selling at healthier MSRPs with a profit margin on them (for example, they could offer a Windows upgrade license for Series S & X and set it at like $199 or $299), meaning the marketing and advertising would have to pivot as well to reflect that.
I do kind of see that being an endgame for Microsoft gaming-wise. What I don't get is how the deals offered to Nvidia and Nintendo do much for certain cloud-centric regulatory concerns or other concerns relating to native availability on other platforms. Notice Microsoft have not attempted such talks with Amazon. Can you guess why? Is it because they view Amazon as an actual competitor, but have repeatedly stated that neither Nvidia (whom they work with in terms of scoping out GPU features with DirectX compatibility) or Nintendo are competitors? Why did Microsoft wait until now to present these offers to regulators? Why did they not present a similar offer to Google before Stadia was decided to be shut down? Considering Google directly referenced MS's acquisition strategy as a reason for them bowing out of the gaming space with Stadia, surely making a move to bring Xbox & ABK games to Stadia the way MS are with Nvidia, would have been seen as a positive by regulators? But did Microsoft not do so, because they see Google as a direct competitor?
See where I'm going with this? Microsoft knows GeForce Now and Nintendo aren't direct threats to their Game Pass or Xbox business models as they currently exist, so they have no qualms making deals with them. Notice that they don't have a similar deal with Valve to bring Game Pass to Steam? I know you can get Game Pass xCloud running on a Steam Deck with some workarounds, but there is no official integration of Game Pass into Steam. That's probably because even Microsoft would acknowledge doing so would make Valve too much of a more direct competitor to them in the PC gaming space. And trust, if Microsoft could rely on Windows Store for PC game sales, they would not even be entertaining Steam releases much at all.
And we already know that they see PlayStation as a direct competitor, despite some earlier words. They offered Sony a deal for COD in PS+ but what does Sony gain from that when their business model relies on direct sales revenue? Why would they cannibalize their main main revenue model for one that could cause them to lose a lot of the revenue they currently make, for a part of the company that is much more critical for Sony's bottom line, than Xbox is for Microsoft's? If MS offers COD for PS+ Day 1, why would Microsoft not put COD in Game Pass Day 1 to counter that? And in doing so, they either cause Sony to lose userbase (they don't put COD in PS+ Day 1 to match because of potential drawbacks), or they lose revenue (put COD into PS+ Day 1, leave direct sales revenue on the table).
In that situation, Sony still loses either way because even if they try matching MS with COD in PS+ Day 1, they'll create expectation among their audience to keep getting COD Day 1 for future iterations. Their customers will expect more 3P AAA Day 1 releases into the service. They'll expect Sony's 1P marquee games in PS+ Day 1. In all cases, potentially bleeding out on otherwise guaranteed direct sales revenue through the traditional, proven model. And if Sony were to do that long enough, even if they finally decided to reverse course, they could be in a situation where they've trained enough people to simply not buy any of their or most 3P games Day 1, so revenue bleed would continue.
A company like Sony can't sustain that type of continuous revenue loss in gaming the way a company like Microsoft could, so while what I'm saying is a hypothetical, maybe even a borderline "doomsday" scenario as a thought exercise, no one can tell me this possibility doesn't have a semi-decent chance of emerging at some point if the acquisition were to be approved purely on the self-imposed behavioral remedies MS are putting out publicly today. Their Nvidia & Nintendo stuff is a good start but I don't think it really addresses most of what regulatory concerns are truly about, and I don't think those concerns can be resolved without at least some sort of (albeit softened) structural remedy or two.
