That seems like it would ruin indy devs.
I'd much prefer a law that prohibits or severely limits the terms of exclusivity agreements.
Creating quality games requires a large amount of cash reserves to pay for a creative team, including programmers; independents usually do not have that luxury.
If Microsoft got to buy Blizzard it might actually cement Blizzard's future, securing the old titles and ensuring future ones. But, it might also get shut down because of lack of focus. I'd much rather have Blizzard remain independent to some degree, because then they may remain undisturbed.
Having said that, however, the arguments presented by regulators are pretty much ridiculous. They seem to only care about competition, and not about what is best for the future of Blizzard and gaming. Too much competition can ultimately degrade and obstruct the end users – I'd also hate to see that.
Why on earth would you want to crush indie developers in favor of large ones?
Some great examples include Super Meat Boy, Minecraft, Terraria, Audiosurf, Risk of Rain, Hotline Miami, Don't Starve, Noita
Sure and the majority of indie developers lose money on their games. However sometimes indie studios produce amazing games and we don't want to prevent that from happening or we'd miss out on games that are some of my all time favorites like FTL and Minecraft (not to mention dozens of others.)
> Creating quality games requires a large amount of cash reserves to pay for a creative team, including programmers; independents usually do not have that luxury.
Only for certain types of games. Indie games don't have the funding to produce massive amounts of assets, but they have the freedom to take risks that larger studios can't. Without that innovation, we'd see even more stagnation in the AAA game market.