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".

▲

ekianjo 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> 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.

Nothing prevents them from selling their Sony console and moving on

	▲	zamadatix an hour ago \| parent [-]
		How can they sell their PlayStation library with it? Sony'll ban accounts that even try and Sony isn't allowing physical libraries be built anymore. Replacing a platform starts to pick up a lot of extra baggage once the company behind it controls more than the platform itself, even if you count switching the literal base platforms like that as frictionless. 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.