I’d like to live in a world where we ignore ANYONE who claims that race, sex, gender, sexual orientation or any other single factor is the sole defining characteristic of a human being.

If it’s a game you’d otherwise play, then yes there is. Only a complete idiot rejects the experience of a game, story, gameplay, etc for no reason other than the sex of the protagonist.

Seriously. I’ve become convinced that the worst part of having is *Gamers*.

Anyone who refuses a game solely on the sex of the protagonist is a moron. Full stop. 

Yeah, I’d rather they do another game exploring some other facet of mental illness with a new character.

My wife plays on her own switch (I also have one). She plays on Xbox. So what? What’s the big deal? I certainly don’t see anything worth being concerned about, much less *angry*.

Don’t bet on it. 

Successful by what metric? This thing will be DOA. No chance it’ll ever see broad adoption at that price or anything close to it.

BORING. Don’t give two shits about yet another remake of a remake.

The funny part of the CMA is that their reach extends no further than their island. So literally, if anyone gets the short end of the stick after the deal goes through (and it 99% likely will), it’ll be British Gamers--aka the people the CMA claims to “protect”.

Antitrust *is* arbitrary, so that shouldn’t be an issue :P.

Do tell: in which market is Microsoft a monopoly? With concrete numbers, if you can.

The deal doesn’t say it’ll come to Switch. It just says Nintendo consoles.

The deal didn’t specify that Call of Duty would come to Switch, just “Nintendo Consoles”. Given the switch is coming up on 7 years into its lifecycle, it’s a safe bet they’ll have a newer system with 4k guts in the not too distant future.

It IS. Has been since 1934. But hey, that doesn’t stoke the fires of hate and “righteous” rage in quite the same way as “It’s only about the money!”, does it?

Ding, ding, ding! Exactly...wrong.

They legally have to announce acquisitions publicly. It’s been that way for 90 years.

In general, competition doesn’t care a great deal until someone taking a risk proves there’s money to be made—then the wallets unfurl and the would-be’s get on board.

The problem with claims of “consolidation” is that the fundamental premise rests on the idea that there are only—and will ever be only—a static number of players in the games industry, with no new entrants ever to come.

You mean Microsoft’s history as in, things that management in charge DECADES ago? Management who is no longer in charge? Or even with the company at all?