Electronic Arts has complied with the Federal Trade Commission's requirements and has submitted necessary information to allow the government probe against possible antitrust law violations. The company has also promised to take no actions in its takeover quest of rival Take-Two until late August, ensuring that the competition is safe for now. Full details after the jump.

There's been a lot of talk and clamor for a one-console future after the next-gens. This has been met with both anticipation and criticism alike. And it's no wonder, as a lot will change if the future only holds one console.

If a one-console future is inevitable, what could it mean for us, the consumers?

It's no secret that a monopoly on exclusive games such as the Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy franchises is a large selling point for the PlayStation 3. However, EMagLive.com reports some very disconcerting info for Sony if it comes to pass: their sources report that the two heavyweight franchises may go multiplatform.

A source close to Microsoft said that the company was currently in talks with Square Enix to "at least get [Final Fantasy XIII] as a timed multiplatform and at most get the game as a simultaneous release." The talks are largely in favor for Microsoft, pending an agreement on the amount for monetary compensation.

When EMagLive.com contacted Square Enix for a comment, the company maintained a stand that could still go both ways:

At this time, there is nothing announced toward a Cross PlatformFinal Fantasy game, other then Final Fantasy XI (Xbox 360, PC) and The Last Remnant (PS3, Xbox 360). This is not to say it will never happen ... decisions to develop additional games for the XBox 360 will ultimately be made by Square Enix and Microsoft.

While investigating FFXIII, they also found that Microsoft may also be close to acquiring the Metal Gear Solid franchise. Konami made an equally ambiguous comment regarding the franchise making the trip to the 360 console:

[We] have no information concerning the possible release of Metal Gear Solid 4 on the XBox 360 at this point [but] keep an eye on our website for updates [regarding any announcements on a 360 version of the anticipated title].

Microsoft's only comment was a no comment statement: "[We] just can't divulge any details of any deals we have with business partners." SCEA CEO Jack Tretton commented on Sony's stand on exclusivity earlier this summer: "We don't buy exclusivity, we don't fund development. We don't, for lack of a better term, bribe somebody to only do a game on our platform."

This is still all hearsay though. In truth, we may never be able to confirm it for sure until the companies decide to announce it, so all we could do at this point is speculate and wait. Updates as we get them.

In the world of gaming industry trading, the latest word is that analyst Michael Pachter believes that GameStop should have purchased the retail chain Gamestation when it had a chance. He believes that GameStop missed an opportunity by not buying the chain, as consequently, it was purchased by the Game Group for £74 million.

The reason for this is quite simple, and Pachter gave a very good explanation why he feels that GameStop lost an opportunity.

They should be in the UK market, and instead of purchasing Gamestation and immediately being one-third the size of Game Group, they allowed Game Group to get bigger. If GameStop were to open 200 stores now, they would be a quarter the size of GAME. They could have been two-thirds the size of GAME by buying these stores and opening 200 more.

Now the increase in The Game Group's market share has certain individuals worried who believe that The Game Group may use their latest acquisition as additional leverage against game publishers. Pachter was quick to put down this rumor, stating that while the company has grown quite a bit, they still don't have enough of the UK market to make demands.

He discussed a worst case scenario where GAME will attempt to exert pressure on the game publishers, and as he explains it, publishers will simply sign exclusives to Wal-Mart or Dixon's. Now, Pachter mentions that the majority of Game's market is composed of hardcore gamers. If they run out of these titles, then gamers will turn to  the likes of Dixon's. He also pointed out that mass-market titles are not really the strong suit of the said company. His conclusion is simply that "If enough publishers shift supply away from them, GAME will learn to play ball in a hurry."

For now, it seems that a gaming distribution monopoly will not be happening in UK. However, the threat of that happening is always there.

 

Ben Kuchera likes to vote with his dollar, and with that, he prefers to keep the monopoly of gaming shops away from becoming "Only EBGameStop." It's why he prefers not to go into an EB Games or GameStop anytime soon. However, how do you deal with items exclusively up for sale only in a specific store chain?

That's the question he asks himself and others when it comes to gaming. In fact, it's already been happening with some titles, such as Chulip, Tenchu, and The Settlers:

Chulip—an offbeat game involving kissing—has been released in the US to the cheers of fans of quirky games. The only problem is that EBGameStop is going to be the only place to buy it. Strategy gamers will be annoyed to hear that The Settlers for the DS will also be an EBGameStop exclusive.

Sure, keeping games to yourself is sound business practice, but it's not particularly wonderful on the consumer end, and it also puts some strain on the backs of other game shops. The one thing Kuchera asks, and that we're hoping never happens, is this: Wouldn't you hate it if your favorite game was only available in one kind of store, which you never really were a fan of?

Can EA Sports gain sole dominion of the video game sports arena in the next generation of consoles? With the right money, it just might, says Wedbush Morgan Securities analyst Michael Pachter, remarking that the stock status of Take-Two interactive has gone from "hold" to "sell."

He says, "We think that Take-Two’s flagship franchise, Grand Theft Auto, will continue to generate significant profits but are less optimistic about the profit potential from its sports business and from 'everything else."

And though GTA IV's October breakout is a sure-fire splash, Pachter says that the sports division creates less-than-significant profit. He cites the reason - the fact that the division is lacking and spending is astronomical.

The woes are compounded by the company's corporate drama which involved the resignation of such stalwarts like Rockstar Games co-founder Terry Donovan, Take-Two founder Ryan Brant, and board member Barbara Kazcynski, who left some scathing remarks to the management team in her resignation letter. Michael Pachter further mentioned that:

We think that Take-Two's greatest asset is also its greatest liability...The company has an environment conducive to creativity and reaps tremendous benefits from allowing its creative staff to work on what it thinks will work...It has also resulted in the inclusion of sexual content (hot coffee) in the company’s flagship brand, the decision to enter the sports business and compete with an 800-pound gorilla named EA, the decision to green light a slew of movie properties with consistently poor results, and several other decisions with poor outcomes.

Pachter said that the equation boils down to the fact that "It is clear to us that Take-Two’s sports business would have tremendous value to EA, as it would give EA a monopoly on football, basketball, baseball, and hockey...It is arguable that EA would benefit by as much as billion if it were to obtain an exclusive; this does not mean that it is willing to pay billion."

It's not hard to figure out that very few competitors, if any at all, would be willing to wage a war of attrition against EA Sports in this age, and Pachter says 2K Sports can go to EA for roughly a quarter of a billion dollars and sleep sound at night knowing that its biggest rival is dead and buried. Neither EA or Take-Two has given statements on the matter so far.