It’s subtle, but if you pay attention to the word choice Pez used:
Bolded emphasis mine.
He never clarified WHO, exactly, were part of the vague, ambiguous, nebulous, (/checks thesaurus) dubious, “many.” Equally hazy, murky, obfuscated, opaque, is WHO, exactly, is meant by “we.”
My guess? Retention metrics. Shareholders are like feral cats. They’ll spook at the merest hint of uncertainty when it comes to RoI, and when provoked, they’ll absolutely ravage the hand that’s trying to feed them.
Gaming may not historically be very high on the list for what generates profits for Microsoft, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll eagerly tolerate insolvency from their subsidiaries. Blizzard needs to continually prove fiscal consistency, and retention metrics are The Dude’s rug in that regard; it really ties the room together.
It’s the MONEY-heads that don’t want overlap, not the players.
I could be wrong! But, as you said, I certainly don’t see proof positive to that effect.