I don't think "they" will learn. The current leadership caste needs to be fully replaced. Not that Jimbo/Herman combo have many more years in the rotating chair (3, or 4 max). Sony's CEO on the other hand, way too suspect. I'll def get him out for someone that understands fully how the golden goose works, cause clearly the man does not understand the intricacies of the market, and its competitive environment. All those grand company plans are fine until the goose doesn't produce as many eggs as it used to, eggs to which you were counting on to be produced to feed every other leech in the company.
You don't ask for growth on PC, and settle for straight porting and call that a bright growth idea, or acceptable. Yet Sony's CEO was, is apparently receptive of that barebones PC strategy. That should tell you a lot about the knowledge the man has of the premium games market in general - hint: very little.
Sony's PC strategy is not a sophisticated strategy, it has its negatives, very strong ones at that, its overly simplistic, short term oriented, and with no long term strategic impact. Even a 2 year old could come up with that - which tells you all you need to know. BTW, this is not an original idea either, just following MS footsteps ("fast follower" moniker) - but MS motivations are many for going to PC are many, strategic in nature. It's a foolish to think PC's biggest stakeholder operated under the same incentive structure as Sony as the leader of the high-end console market. MS will sacrifice Xbox if need be for their long strategic aims - they don't believe in console hardware as a matter of fact. Sony can not sacrifice PlayStation.
This caretaker leadership, from the very top, like Sony's CEO, down to the subsidiary level (Jim/Herman) are playing the long game stupidly.