The usual answer is: If Sony raises the price of games in it's store, Sony denies 3rd party stores, and Sony removes the physical media option, then there are a significant number of people no longer able to consider open market dynamics in picking which low dollar game to buy next as they have massive (in comparison) investments in the platform.
McDonald's can certainly raise the price of a Big Mac, and McDonald's can certainly limit where it's sold to 1st party locations, but they don't really have the ability to bend the market to pay more than they'd like to for Big Macs because there is no platform investment. Like you say, people can go to Burger King and get a burger. It just doesn't cost hundreds of dollars to do so, making a few dollar increase have true market weight. You can also order the 3rd party burger from a number of places on those apps because there is no restriction that the person sold to is the only one entitled to a burger.
The part that leaves people debating is more "exactly how much interference is problematic rather than good business" than "what's the difference between A and B and doesn't that apply to every other situation too".
Nothing prevents them from selling their Sony console and moving on
Ignoring the above for a moment, this is exactly the kind of "exactly how much interference is problematic rather than good business" debate I was referring to. Obviously it's harder to sell a PlayStation and get another system than it is to eat a different burger that day. And obviously this is easier than if the burger joints in the region collude to raise prices on Saturdays but how impactful is it? Well, that's precisely the debate. Most side long before "it'd be impossible for an individual to do anything at all about it" but even that isn't universally held.
That's not the fight I'd personally focus on. I'd personally focus on them revoking digital access after you've "purchased it". Then again, I don't have a game console and I don't "buy" digital media. I either rent via streaming subscription or own the physical.
Additionally, many of the games are already on different platforms (PC), just not any other consoles.
I think the biggest thing is that Sony doesn’t actually make the games (they don’t have the kitchen nor the cooks), they just sell it.
So a more apt comparison would be a grocery store, I think.
Sony does make the games, they have many excellent first party studios!
What are you talking about!
And yes the upfront costs being subsidized is exactly the point.
Sony’s 1st party stuff is (often) exceptional. It’s the reason an Xbox or PC isn’t a complete replacement.
This isn't true anymore.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/sony-says-499-ps5-no-longer-sells...
The CFO said this in 2021:
“But the profitability of PS5 in -- there was this view of reaching breakeven point in June, but PS5 breakeven point for standard edition, more correctly on standard edition, that's how we explain the situation. And it's been progressing according to the plan. Overall, hardware profitability and peripherals hardware profitability, including peripherals, as we have been saying, is proceeding smoothly.”
And PCMag is inferring this means ONLY the $499 edition of the console which they previously suggested could become profitable later. It doesn't mean every edition of the PS5, and things have changed since 2021.
And Sony said it was having losses on consoles as recently as 2024.
yes, that's called a differentiated product in economics and it confers market power the same way any other monopoly does, Sony controls the Playstation ecosystem, Apple its ecosystem and it gives them leverage over the consumer, those products are not commodities.
That's why pharmaceuticals, patented medical devices or cable and broadband providers are regulated, see net neutrality legislation. Which exists exactly to commoditize information access in a market that's dominated by differentiated providers so they can't exercise their gatekeeping power to drive prices between you and online services up.