As the Xbox leaks have shown us, what is said to investors (and sometimes, even internally) does not necessarily align with reality.
At this rate, while I'm interested in a PS6 WRT potential technical and feature capabilities, it's becoming a no-go in terms of something I'd actually buy. Since I don't have FOMO, Sony are making it ridiculously easy for me to consolidate my gaming on PC, but that also means they won't be getting PS+ or 3P sales revenue from me at that point, either (unless they push their own storefront on PC and make it extremely competitive with Steam).
So I can only speak for myself in this type of context, but the irony is I'd of had zero issue with them taking a more Nintendo-like approach in where they placed their software and prioritized it over the long-term. I'd have no issue buying a PS6 if I knew it being a requirement to play their games, even without FOMO. But it is what it is. We'll see if things change with their strategy on this front next year, but I'm not counting on it.
Its so weird, though. Sony mainly took cues from Nintendo's business strategies when putting out the PS1, PS2 etc. and made smart changes where needed. The success of that was clearly evident in the market performance of those titles. OTOH, Microsoft took cues mainly from Sega's business strategies for OG Xbox, 360, and XBO, with a few adjustments here and there. You can correlate the market performance for ALL of their systems to equivalent Sega consoles: OG Xbox = Master System. 360 = Genesis. XBO = Saturn. Series = Dreamcast. And like with Sega only one platform/business period was particularly mega-successful, the 2nd one. Which, as we've come to find out lately, at least in terms of console hardware sales the Genesis wasn't as much a bonafide success as initially thought, and I think the same can be said for 360 when you factor out the "boost" of RROD, or the Kinect boost, seeing its sales trajectory without those in the picture.
So why is Sony taking more from Microsoft's model, which is largely based on Sega's model, which was not particularly successful in the console space? MS can afford that type of platform model because of their sheer size in other key markets, low reliance on gaming revenue & profit as a whole, and having a stranglehold of sorts on PC gaming (which for MS is analogous to Sega's presence in the arcade market during the '80s and '90s, but much more pronounced because Windows isn't "just" for gaming). Sony can't afford that strategy without eventual cannibalization seriously impacting them in some negative way.
I guess the next 2-3 years will be very telling as to whether I'm right or wrong on this, because like with Xbox, the results (good or bad; bad in the case of Xbox consoles) take a few years to bear out. Hopefully for Sony/PlayStation it goes better.