Doesn't really matter how it's dressed optics wise. If you understand the underlying policy position no amount of optics is going to change the fundamental decision. In other words, no amount of cope will soothe the fact that PS gamers and PC gamers will be placed in the same totem pole with PS gamers footing the majority of the bill while also getting used as whales to build the capacity to even do this. Just a corp with a love for money above anything else doing what corps do. Gamers should, opportunity arising, treat PlayStation "loyalty" wise the same. They're not loyal to you and you should definitely not be, as a consumer, loyal to them. Problem with fanaticism is that fans like to live in the illusion world that maybe this or that corp is different because of an irrational love for a hobby. I support above all a model of doing business that has made gaming what it's - the traditional console model, both for hardware and software distribution. Don't matter to me so much which company carries the legacy of it and practices it with its platform - insert x. Just so happens PlayStation is, at this current time, the most well rounded practitioner of this model in this regard. Nintendo refuses, for reasons that have 100% to do with their bottomline, to get up to date and at the cutting, industry-forward edge. Meanwhile MS Xbox is a trojan horse that seeks to completely disrupt this model and shift the market into something completely different where they control everything and sit at the top - naturally they're last. The oligopoly does need more competition, clearly. However, not all competition is good competition, specially market model disrupting competition (say cloud for example, a qualitative lesser of the current traditional console model).
tech4gamers.com
