This same kind of note seems to come up repeatedly in threads like this with no regard to a similar question ever having been thought up or discussed every other time the topic comes up. Different brands of course, but I'm not sure I've actually seen a net new discussion of this point here in years.

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".

Your analogy falls apart somewhere for me but I can't pinpoint the exact correction to make your analogy work for me. Either way I agree. If they don't like only being able to buy digital PS games via Sony's platform, go to one where they can.

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.

If McDonalds were the only restaurant allowed to sell food within a particular market, and you couldn't buy food there from anyone else, then yes, your analogy would work. Otherwise it doesn't. A closer analogy would be Apple or the old company store model in company towns. In fact, why didn't you go with those?

>So McDonald's has a monopoly on the Big Mac?

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.

No, they're arguing that you shouldn't have to make your home kitchen a McDonalds franchise in order to eat Big Macs in it.