No. You need to learn how to competently address his point, instead of moving the goalpost so that it better fits your narrative. The point was that should the deal pass, it would in fact give people more choices instead of less in regards to where people could play the game. Your shit reply about it's performance and whatnot in no way undermines or disputes his point. Instead you're trying to argue that Nintendo can't competitively compete with MS with CoD, when it would do just that. To what degree is up for debate, but again... That wasn't the question asked or the point. It was about consumers choice. You're the one who sidestepped that point to make it about competition.
An effective competitor? I'm not sure. But it doesn't have to necessarily be one, because the game would also be available on Steam and Playstation as well. It would absolutely expand the CoD market though, and I wouldn't think that is even really debatable. There's no law or reason though that it should have to dilute anyone else's marketshare, especially MS's.
Well if I'm playing the role of MS, to your regulator... I would answer that MS is in no way, shape, or form a monopoly within the gaming market, and would continue to not be after the acquisition, and as such wouldn't be able to effectively engage in monopolistic practices. I would point out that while you have given examples of recent anti consumer behavior from both Sony and Nintendo, there are no such examples from MS. Furthermore, MS has fulfilled the promises it's made in the past as to where it would release it's games where possible. Additionally, while there are no such instances of either of it's competitors allowing any of their games or projects to be released on a competitor's platform (outside of MLB The Show which was dictated by MLB), MS has done so multiple times with games such as Minecraft, Cuphead, and Ori being a few examples.
I've addressed your substance, just asking for you to do the same instead of changing it.