Hmm I find it bit cherry picked.

The article omits how the analysis done by economist from FTC side actually had some flaws and actually supported some of the talking points from Xbox, and when questioned on the same, the economist dodged it multiple times to the point judge had to ask clearly, to no result.

"All this for a shooter" came up because FTC kept bringing CoD (and Switch) to the discussion, which Xbox already has signed deals to keep it multiplatform and has analysis to show how it doesn't make economic sense, something which CMA and EU also agreed to.

When judge makes the comment on computer, she was actually asking FTC to explain it to her if it's reasonable and even acknowledged that it could be her bias as she didn't have a bargain of a computer. So calling her out of touch to enquire more about something she admitted she doesn't know seems half true.

Saying that it's a red flag when a Judge believes words of powerful executives is also cherry picked when it wasn't just the words of executives, but stated from day one, penned in various deals sent to Valve, Nintendo, nVidia, Sony, and many other competitors, even acknowledged by Jim Ryan in internal emails that it isn't about exclusivity, and even said by both executives under oath in the court. None of this ever happened with Zenimax, and they said they'll not take games away and bring games to wherever GamePass exists, which has been true. (Starfield & Redfall were never announced for PS5, Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo's PS5 exclusivity contract was respected, Doom Eternal got Ray Tracing update on PS5, Skyrim AE launched on PS5, ESO and Fallout 76 still get updates on PS5, even with a 60fps patch for PS5 and Xbox very recently).

Also saying that Xbox has raised prices of GamePass is incomplete in the sense it doesn't tell it is the first increase since its launch, and not a big one either when compared to similar subscription services and competitors (Sony, the market leader, was the first to increase its console price and games price, even for previously announced $60 games; Horizon Forbidden West), right when entire globe is going through a recession. Of course prices will be increased, that's how money works, and if it isn't feasible, people won't subscribe to GamePass and buy games instead. This case wasn't about whether Subscription services are good or bad. All that nuance is missed in this article.

I'm not saying mergers are good, or that this deal shouldn't be scrutinized with maximum intensity, but the article seems to be painting a picture that FTC made perfect points and arguments and Judge simply scoffed at everything and nodded with Mega Corporation blindly.

I read this last night and thought it was a good article. I'm surprised by the lack of comments.

News about the merger being approved was being discussed on Beehaw and everyone was dogpiling on Microsoft saying they're the devil for buying Activision Blizzard.

When I pointed out that Sony are also not innocent, as they regularly pay publishers to block release of games on Xbox, my comment was deleted.

At this stage Xbox is the underdog when compared to PlayStation and need a deal like this to not fall out of the market which would be a bad thing for everyone because it would mean less competition.

Of course it would be much better if no company was allowed to make exclusivity deals with publishers.