In my view, this is honestly one of the better arguments for Microsoft acquiring Activision. MS has already agreed with the CWA to remain neutral in any unionization effort after acquiring Activision. I should be clear that this is a legal agreement.

This is significant since whenever a company interferes with unionization, like Activision did, the dispute goes to the NLRB which can drag on for months. MS would effectively grant their game developers freedom to unionize.

This is significant for the union movement, especially when compared to other large corporations. But this is even bigger for the gaming industry as unions there are are virtually non-existent. And I would think this would go a long way at preventing development crunch, or rushing games in general.

Again, you're comparing consolidation of gaming companies under publishers to console manufacturer. MS actually has strong financial interests in getting out more variety of games that people want to buy. And gamepass makes this reason doubly so.

And if on thay half a decade comment you are referring only to the new studios they have acquired (Obsidian and Bethesda) then they have put out games that people want to buy, just not exclusive to Xbox. So I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

It's the people in charge and their strategies that matter, not a company name.

Phil inherited few first party gaming studios with poor leadership in them. And he's had a "hands off" approach with managing these devs, allowing them to do as they will.

Normally that would be seen as a good thing. But when the studios already have poor leadership in them, it doesn't really mean much.

Microsoft acquiring new first party studios is the only way to bolster their first party offering without compromising on their hands off approach.

Your point on the 360 vs PS3 bit is actually inaccurate. The 360 vs PS3 era was competive precisely because Microsoft and Sony had bought a lot of studios during the previous generation and both worked exclusivity deals with third party ones.

And again, you can't blanketly treat all larger entities the same. Unlike Activision, Microsoft must put out games people want to buy to bolster both the Xbox console and their subscription service. As the console makes a loss for the company and subscription services take a long time to make a meaningful profit. If it can even consistently sustain one as MS is pretty open about the fact that gamepass deals are all over the place.

Activision alone has no such dynamic and financial preassure.

Can you point to me which AAA devs did Microsoft make to "produce jack shit for 5 years now".

I'm guessing you're referring to the triple A devs Microsoft already had 5 years ago (343, Rare, The Coalition, etc.) not any they acquired recently.

The issue is that Phil Spencer inherited few first party studios with those studios having poor leadership in them. Phil has had a "hands off" approach since he became the head of Xbox. Now, normally that would be seen as a good thing, but with poor leadership already plauging the companies they already had, having a hands off approach does not really do much.

Microsoft acquiring more studios is the only way to bolster their first party games without compromising on their hands off strategy. Something that I am sure you are aware the current head of Activition does not do with their gaming studios.

You can't blanketly treat all consolidation the same. This is something that will help bring the industry back to the days of aggresive competition of the 360 vs PS3 era.

Lucky for you, this acquisition would finally help bring competition to the industry after a decade of Sony having an easy time.