That's just it though -- video games are not "monopolized" in any meaningful sense. A particular IP may be "monopolized" -- e.g. owned by a particular company that has more or less of an interest in producing cross platform versions. But that's not really a monopoly, is it?

Microsoft is neither close to eating Steams lunch nor is this acquisition going to change anything about the competitive landscape. Microsoft is currently a distant third place behind Sony and Nintendo, and after this acquisition they are... still a distant third.

If Microsoft is ever in a position where a single merger will materially threaten to catapult them over Sony or Nintendo, then that would be the time to block the deal. In the meantime, I would prefer if the FTC doesn't kill off deals because someday, in the far distant future, the companies involved may be in a more dominant position.

If anything, blocking this deal does nothing but protect Sony's already dominant position from one of their sole competitors making up even a small amount of ground.

> Will the courts allow Microsoft to buy Sony gaming business?

Why not? What would it matter to the players on these consoles? Is demand for certain titles so price insensitive that Microsoft could then jack up the price by 100% and people would still buy them? Even if that's true (it's almost certainly not) the barriers to entry in the video game business are extremely low, so this would just create an enormous opportunity and pissed off consumers would jump to a newly created platform.

>Will the courts allow Microsoft to buy Sony gaming business?

The gaming business, sure. The rest of Sony is still HQ'd in Japan and in fact manages many semi-needed and needed busineses, so there's zero chance MS buys Sony as a whole.

>Microsoft is also getting ready to eat Steam’s lunch for a while on the PC side

Didn't go too well last decade. Best of luck this time.