Galgavias
Koopa
Activision had like 6 studios working on Call of Duty and with Toys for Bob were about to make it 7. The entire company was becoming a COD factory because that was what buttered their bread, and with the huge explosion in resources needed for games of COD's size they couldn't afford to have development studios dallying on other projects.Keep in mind that like the PR comments above about not taking COD away from PS, Phil saying that they might loosen the release schedule to improve working conditions and saying that they will allow developers to go back to neglected IP is the type of things regulators want to hear.
- We're not going to be anti-competitive
- We're going to improve working conditions
- We're going to improve variety of products and increase consumer choice
With the acqusition suddenly these studios do not need to have to produce a COD every single year to appease shareholders. Microsoft have other revenue streams which suddenly releases a lot of pressure. You could put Inifinity Ward and Treyarch on a four yearly cycle each, with a new COD releasing every two years. Meanwhile Raven Studios keeps Warzone chugging along in the meantime while offering support to the other two studios when it comes to crunch time. Then boom, you've freed up four whole studios to focus on other games.
I think scenarios like this is why the acqusition will go through. It's a bizarre scenario in that it could really benefit Activision's core studios, and that's before you consider the morale boost at not having an abusive gremlin at the wheel ruining their output, recruitment and reputation. It generally benefits both parties and there's still enough competition in the industry so that it doesn't count as monopolisation.
Though I would be surprised if there weren't some kind of layoffs, which will suck big time.