Yeah, this is the real danger of the deal. Most likely, it will: 1. First, be good for consumers short-term as MS floods the market with high quality cheap con

Yeah, this is the real danger of the deal. Most likely, it will: 1. First, be good for consumers short-term as MS floods the market with high quality cheap content. 2. Next, be bad for the games industry medium term as their product gets devalued and only the biggest winner-take-all free to play games can compete vs. the value of bundled content 3. Next, be bad for gaming employees and entrepreneurs as the value of their roles gets squeezed and the nature of working in the industry become more constrained and formulaic 4. Finally, end up bad for consumers when the quality and variety of viable gaming products declines. Sadly, the FTC and CMA chose to base their cases on a bunch of abject nonsense, so I'm grateful that the FTC has rightfully lost the crummy case that it made. And the CMA is also about to rightfully lose / surrender next. But the key words of my take are "most likely". Games market changes too much to make long term predictions about. The countervailing forces are increasingly cheaper and easier creator tools, as well as the rising difficulty of maintaining a meaningful hardware edge. From the public policy perspective, it's much more urgent to come up with meaningful and sound legal doctrines against excessive market power than it is to litigate speculative crap based on the optics of resisting big price tags. Lina Khan's performative career boosterism has been a huge failure because she's just as greedy and anti-social as every stereotype about corporate management. But I have faith that a framework which doesn't rely on spectacle and punditry can be found. The EU is trailblazing in that area where the US and UK are still completely primitive.