I know that news doesn't hit on weekends, I was referring to them being relatively quiet last week. I would agree that if ABK goes through and gives them a massive boost, they won't be able to argue to regulators that they're this weak small brand that's being bullied anymore.
Yep, and that's probably the best outcome now that I think about it. If they get ABK, their gaming revenue more or less permanently leapfrogs Nintendo's, and comes within spitting distance of Sony's, if not surpassing theirs. There is also a base expectation of what Xbox's revenue should look like going forward with ABK being acquired, and if that revenue isn't reached, depending on how far below that expectation it drops it could seriously draw in questions about if ABK were better off staying independent.
If their output under Xbox starts to depreciate in revenue, there's an avenue (IMO) where it could be argued the M&A actually caused market harm because we'd see an overall drop in console market revenue. Of course, in that case ABK now being absorbed into Xbox division (under Microsoft Gaming) would make it hard to see the financials for the ABK side specifically but that's nothing an audit can't solve.
Basically there is going to be a lot of pressure on Microsoft to at least maintain an expected base level of revenue with Xbox and with ABK, and with both of them combined. And that base revenue clearly puts them ahead of Nintendo and within striking distance of PlayStation. Shareholders generally expect revenue of acquired assets to grow thanks to vertical integration, so in reality they are likely expecting a combined revenue through Xbox & ABK greater than if you took their individual revenues right now and added them together. In which case would probably put them ahead of PlayStation (although PlayStation is growing in revenue itself; doesn't change that the gap would be significantly smaller though).
So how does Microsoft justify they need more 3P publishers to "compete" with PlayStation in that scenario? They can't. ABK gave you this much of a boost, Zenimax gave you a boost, you've leapfrogged Nintendo and could pass PlayStation in gaming revenue. You're competing now, you don't need any other publishers. If combined revenue post-acquisition suddenly drops below baseline expectations, suspicions of management incompetence and foul play will be in play, and that could lead to its own investigations. I think the path for MS to pick up some independent developers remains open after ABK, though, and if they were smart they'd make Certain Affinity & Avalanche official.
Although MS getting ABK IMO neutralizes them in acquiring other publishers, I still have a stick against the acquisition if it doesn't set a precedent for other Big Tech companies to just rush in and buy out the industry of major 3P IPs and talent. Which is why I still think some form of divestiture, or behavioral remedies much more serious than the flimsy 10-year deals MS have been throwing around, need to be enforced. Because any other Big Tech company or just large company in general looking to buy a 3P publisher can just use MS's playbook, and get what they want relatively easily. What are regulators going to do, suddenly look at a company like Apple and use their size as a whole corporate entity to bar them from a publisher? Why didn't they do that with Microsoft!? It'd be an easy contradiction to point out and Apple would destroy them in court for it.
So that's the main reason I still have resistance to the deal. If there were some form of (fair) divestiture involved or more serious behavioral remedies being imposed, I would feel more comfortable with the deal going through, realizing now what an approved deal would put Microsoft in position-wise WRT going after other publishers (it'd be extremely difficult if not impossible). Let's see what the CMA have to say in three days.
