I've said it before, but I'm really impressed with the way Jim Ryan and Sony conducted themselves throughout all this. They were one of the few companies that devoted time, money, and resources to fighting this acquisition tooth and nail. Sure, the console SLC was thrown out but, as we're seeing now, MS' plans were just as bad or worse than many of us suspected. Remember all the ridiculing for how Sony wouldn't come to the negotiating table or take a ten year deal? As we're seeing now, there was a lot more at stake than just getting CoD on PS.
While other companies caved and signed those deals or supported MS, Sony took all the flak from the media and were professional about not lowering themselves to MS' level. It would seem that Sony very much understands what consolidation will mean not only for their business, but also for this hobby we all love. And I'm thankful for that.
I generally agree very much about Sony's professionalism throughout this, and not taking the reality TV, tabloid-fueled approach that Microsoft and their supporters have increasingly done since late last year. And as you've said, just bearing the brunt of mostly unfair criticism and attacks against them when it turns out they were right on the money about resisting the acquisition. They probably saw it as, if MS get ABK, they'll go after other publishers (and Satya Nadella in fact said they "weren't done" shortly after announcing the ABK deal. That aged well, didn't it?) and that constrains our working relationship with 3P partners if our direct competitor is in control of the contracts, the cash flow, the talent, the IP, the infrastructure, the distribution of that content.
BUT I don't think any of that means Sony haven't considered a publisher acquisition or two of their own. They might still be considering one and, at the end of the day, whoever gets one, that's still consolidation. However I think it's safe to say, we have historical evidence of Sony handling their gaming acquisitions MUCH better than Microsoft have theirs, in terms of both working with those companies prior to acquisition and then growing them to reach even higher once they've been acquired.
So on principal of what an acquisition the size of ABK could mean for further industry consolidation, I would still be against it on said grounds. However, I'd at least of been a lot more hopeful of actual studio cultural changes and increased creative output & polish if Sony were the ones making that acquisition, just going off past precedent. But that would only be a small consolation in what would still be a troubling, large-scale gaming acquisition resulting in a notable consolidation (and shrinkage of the 3P market).
Can't rule out Sony attempting for a publisher themselves in the near future, though obviously would be much smaller than ABK, or even something like EA or Take Two. Also more likely it would be a Japanese publisher rather than an American or European one; their acquisitions on those last two fronts have been pretty much focused on independent studios, most with no IP attached to them (Bungie is the sole exception). If/when they do, though, at least we know they would handle it much better than Microsoft have handled the ABK deal, that's for sure.
Just like pro-MS people are calling them corrupt because it didn't go through.
I do remember questioning some of their reasoning in the revised PF where they dropped the console SLC, and maybe cracked a few sarcastic statements here and there, but never once questioned their process or thought they were corrupt or invalid, and never thought anything of the CAT overturning it or having the UK government step in.
Just accepted that the console SLC was dropped, and likely that the deal stood a better chance of being passed, which did concern me because of what precedent it may've set for future consolidation if MS's 10-year deals were somehow enough. And somehow that letting the deal past even though behavioral remedies were mentioned as not being sufficient for a case like ABK due to difficulty in enforcing the remedies (and it not being the regulator's job to "babysit" decisions for long-term after a decision was made).
Although I also admit I had forgotten about cloud concerns to a large extent by that point, and hadn't thought about the mobile implications (and potential concerns, of which MS offered nothing to, not even proactively just to get ahead of it as a potential stress point) either.
Apparently MS forgot about the actual cloud concerns, too.