MS buying EA would be the death of most PC games.
MS has patently spent the last 5 years focussing all it's gaming energy on the 360/xbox. Numerous MS games were 360/PC and in almost every case the PC version was canned. their PC studios have almost all closed.
And GFWL has essentially damaged the brand of PC gaming.
EA on the other hand has been one of the strongest supporters of PC gaming.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but in the PC market 9 months is a very, very long time. Everyone in this topic except you seems to agree with me on that point. I did notice your attempt to dodge my point. Nice try.

They're shutting down/severing ties with gaming studios, full stop. So yes, at the moment they're not personally publishing much of anything. That doesn't make the statement quoted any more true, in any case. It's easily disproved, even given the present MS gaming cutbacks.
The PC version of Alan Wake is in the same kind of limbo that Resident Evil 5 was when the console version was released. The PC version was still released eventually. Even despite Capcom's hurried correction of a statement that included mention of a PC version.
So while there may be a typical delay, I haven't seen any evidence that would suggest it or the three other PC titles in the works are being cancelled.
But none of this addresses the point that MS wouldn't kill most of EA's profit margin by forcing focus on the 360 alone. That's completely ludicrous and something that EA would have absolutely no reason to concede to. Why would they sell out to see their profits run into the ground? Only struggling companies would consider such a deal. EA is too big for that.
If Microsoft are doing their best to kill the PC market, why finally get around to establishing the Games for Windows standard and the Games for Windows Live client? Sure, the latter is not something I'm inclined to commend. But claiming they're trying to kill a market they're finally trying to standardise just because they're desperately trying to make the 360 less of a financial failure doesn't add up at all. Neither does thinking they could hope to force EA to destroy itself utterly for no logical reason.
In short: it's either all bullshit, or Microsoft have gone completely insane and this deal is a non-starter.
What point was that, exactly? To be honest, I haven't seen anything else in this thread that has made one iota of sense, save for DarrkPhoenix's post.

Sony also created the SecuROM malware and used scare tactics to convince publishers that it's a necessary measure to defeat the evil PC pirates. So maybe it's a conspiracy between the two to murder the PC and create a console utopia? ...that neither seem able to command any real profit from... :D
To the best of my knowledge, Halo is purely in Bungie's hands now. They probably don't want the PC FPS competition to show their major IP up as a tad on the average side. When it was up to MS, Halo 2 made its way to the PC... eventually. But to no fanfare.
Gears 2 is again purely down to the developers. Epic is lead by a child in a man's body and that child is sulking because the PC won't play with him any more. Microsoft probably couldn't control his tantrums even if they wanted to.
Fable 2... buggered if I know. But Molyneux has been heading in a preteen console kiddy direction ever since Bullfrog folded. He probably completely forgot the PC even existed when he found out about Natal. It wouldn't surprise me.
Now that makes a lot more sense. Suggesting that Microsoft want to effectively turn the PC into another console-esque platform that they can control through GFW and subsequently proft from every title released does actually make a lot of sense. Claiming they're trying to kill it does not.
Even if every major publisher left, the indie companies would take over (like they're doing already) and the process would start over. A major step backwards, but there's no way anyone is in a position to kill it.

Nope, that's wrong. Halo is in Microsoft's hands. They own the IP and everything associated with it.
Also, well, your argument wouldn't really have made any sense if you were right about Bungie owning the Halo IP. Obviously, as an independent developer, they would have wanted to profit from the user base on the PC.
That's not a very convincing argument, TBH. And who are you referring to? Tim Sweeney, Mark Rein or Mike Capps? They're the ones who run the company.
Erm, again, what sort of an argument is this? "He probably completely forgot the PC even existed"?
Before Fable, ALL Lionhead-games were PC/Mac exclusives. Between the Xbox release of Fable and the acquisition by Microsoft, Lionhead released two PC/Mac-exclusives (plus two expansions, again PC/Mac), as well as an expanded PC-version of Fable. After they were bought by Microsoft.... nothing.
You don't think that, perhaps, the company that owns them has something to do with that? Hm?

Yep, Cliff Blezinkski is just a cheerleader. :D

Yeah, and Halo was originally developed primarily for the Mac no less, then MS snatched Bungie by the neck and decided that they should be MS's bitch and port their shiny almost-done FPS to the Xbox, thereby adding another year (I think) until release, then yet more time until a Windows, and finally Mac version came out... even though it was just about ready for the latter platform before the buyout. In porting it to console, it had to be dumbed down, and now when they're free again they're probably ashamed to show what it has become.

Wow. Brilliant post! Yes, I'm sure everyone except you and DarrkPhoenix are completely dim, despite giving examples that have, time and time again, proven you wrong.
By the way, my point was that the DRM on EA games != rental. However, my other point, which you haven't successfully countered either, is that Microsoft doesn't give a shit about the PC in terms of games.

Microsoft isn't as stupid as you guys seem to think. For one, they get most of their sales from their OS, which is bought by people buying the newest stuff, and alot of those sales come from gamers!
And two, they need some exclusives for their console. Console kids love their Halo. Why are people whining about Halo when the pc actually has GOOD FPS GAMES?

"Anything else" as in anything else I haven't already addressed. Not 'everything else by everyone'. Plus, I made no comment on the quality of my own posts. But hey, why bother ditching the massively over-exaggerated, erroneous hyperbole?
Call it what you will. If there's no possibility of ownership and it is more likely than not going to expire (unless EA have unannounced plans to patch it out) then calling their DRM filled games rentware remains too kind. I don't see the point in debating semantics. Especially when it achieves absolutely nothing.
What Microsoft care about is making the 360 actually profitable. The problem for them is that they're having a bloody hard time of meeting even that modest goal. So yes, they no doubt do want 360 exclusives.
Does that mean that they're going to butcher EA, throwing most of the company away and reduce it to a 360 exclusive developer? No. Could they do that even if they wanted to? No.

Yet Bungie say that they're now quite happy to continue as a 360 exclusive developer even though there are no contractual ties deciding that for them. I know they produced Mac FPS, but I didn't know Halo was to be one of them.
Still, whatever you think of console FPS (my opinions aren't too high), there's no denying that they fared a lot better on Xbox than they ever would have on Mac. After all, it wasn't a gaming platform back then. And still isn't by any realistic standards.

I suppose I should have known. Although, given that Halo is the only IP Bungie is interested in developing, that does make the split a lot less purposeful. Maybe they didn't like what MS had planned for the studio. Given what happened to the others, they may have simply wanted to get out while they could.
Actually they don't want to develop for the PC. Now they're free they plan on remaining 360-exclusive. Although that could simply mean that they don't plan on developing anything outside the Halo IP.
I'm 90% sure it was Capps who made the less mature comments about the lack of PC versions in future. But I don't have a link.
Blezinkski made the official announcement. It's just a shame they didn't just leave it at that. But it doesn't particularly matter. What's important is that Epic, as a company has no interest in the PC any more. That has nothing to do with outside influences and if it was, they're signed with EA, not MS.
Obviously I'm very familiar with Molyneux's back catalogue. Which is why I've seen the change in titles and attitudes over the years. Sure, Microsoft threw him in with Natal. But I bet he couldn't be happier about that.

They were primarily a Mac developer, though Windows ports were released for a few games as well. Marathon 2, Myth 2, and Oni got official Windows ports/versions, I'm unsure about Myth 1, and Myth 3 wasn't developed by Bungie at all as the IP had been sold to Take2 by then. Marathon and Marathon Infinity did not get Windows ports until the open-source engine AlephOne was released and the game data made free.
It seems that Halo: Reach is the last game in the Halo series - last, not latest - at least for Bungie (supposedly MS will take over after that) and they're apparently working on new IP.

It makes you wonder what would have happened to them if they hadn't been bought out. I doubt that they would have been as financially successful. But they probably wouldn't still just be churning out Halo games.

So we'll have to see if their new IP is 360-only, or if their comments about sticking with the 360 was just some PR BS to keep Microsoft happy while they were still working on Halo.

Ambrosia Software is still in the game after 16 years of producing almost exclusively Mac games and software.

Oh I'm not saying it's impossible. But there's no denying there was far more money in the Xbox... from a software standpoint at least. Plus, they were expanding into the PC market before Halo. So I'm sure they really wouldn't have done too badly for themselves at all.