> Microsoft also enjoyed exclusivity deals before Sony

Sony entered the video game console market prior to Microsoft. Sony has repeatedly engaged in exclusivity deals to stifle competition in order to maintain it's market dominance. And this started right around the release of the Tomb Raider saga and with Crash Bandicoot. There's plenty of evidence demonstrating their exclusivity foothold dealings over time.

Nintendo bought Pokémon and earns a bludgeoning profit from its ownership as the single best selling gaming franchise in history. Yet no one burst into upheaval when Nintendo purchased all rights to it after Pokémons explosive release on the Gameboy, a handheld market that was solely controlled by Nintendo at the time.

Sega had a console market before turning into a software-only company after the Dreamcast was overshadowed by PS2s release. Unfortunately for Sega, the didn't have the capital or the studios to contend with both Nintendo and Sonys dominance. But honestly, there was a plethora of multiple problems for Sega. Some of which self inflicted. I miss Sega as a console contender, but I digress.

> Seems like this is projection to me.

Projection how? How am I imposing my statements onto other people or attempting to control a narrative? Explain.

I'm not for or against the Microsoft deal.
I'm simply illustrating the hypocrisy in the arguments of those that automatically shout "anticompetitive" over this deal when other companies have made similar deals in the past.