arandomguy
Veteran
Yeah, I didn't say this. Where I am is that I as a consumer with no vested interest here because Zenimax games will be still on platforms I own, don't care. But I can see why other companies in the industry may not like it. Put yourself in any other company's position then ask yourself, with no bias, is this good for me as this company? Is this good for Sony? Good of Nintendo? Good for Google? Good for Nvidia? Good for Amazon? Good for EA or Ubisoft?
Would you not also argue that from Microsoft's perspective that Sony and Nintendo's existing exclusive first party content is not good for them (Microsoft) as a company?
I might be in the minority opinion on this with respect to the issue on acquisitions but I feel from a logical stand point that the reasons you object to an acquisition/merger should also be applied similarly to advocating to splitting up existing companies.
This is off topic but similarity I have this disconnect with people who are against another major merger that is undergoing scrutiny currently in the tech space but would not advocate the splitting of existing companies in similar circumstances (if anything cheering for them).
. And this is the position that the EU is now hardening on. Where it becomes complicated is it is relatively easy to assess the market impact of Microsoft buying Zenimax, you look at the games released over the past 5 years, looks at critical acclaim and sales on individual platforms, then picture the market where those games are not on other platforms - because there is no guarantee that will continue. It is much more difficult to picture the market if - for example - Sony was forced to allow Naughty Dog to become independent again. Would an independent Naughty Dog, denied almost unlimited funding from Sony, produce as good games? Even when they were independent the majority of their console output was on PlayStation anyway. Would that change? How would the be market be better? Or worse? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 
