I think the only response to this is for us all to remember that businesses are not our friends.
Spencer can talk the talk about wanting games to be everywhere for anyone to play them but his words are meaningless if Microsoft published titles are getting caught up in PC and Xbox exclusivity arrangements.
Sony can say what it wants about the dangers of Microsoft making games like CoD exclusive, but to this day they're doing work behind the scenes to keep major titles like FFXVI to themselves for as long as possible.
At this point I'm more concerned with Windows exclusivity. Obviously there's a financial incentive for Xbox to only release on Windows, but it's hard to argue you're not locked into a platform in a similar way.
I don't entirely disagree with you but there's a huge difference between a company making a game or two exclusive, versus a company outright buying an entire publisher and making all their games exclusive for the rest of time.
When games take 2-5 years to make, it’s essentially the same as buying the company. ESPECIALLY when multiple canes in a row are released only for one platform.
Sony may be hypocritical and arguing dishonestly but that doesn't really make their accusations at Microsoft invalid. The ideal solution would be if regulating agencies both block Microsoft's acquisition and also demand that Sony quits with exclusivity agreements.
I see a lot of gamers going like "well if Sony is being manipulative, it's only fair that Microsoft does too" and that's pretty short-sighted. This situation will have big long-term consequences. Rather than picking sides, we ought to think of our side as customers.
To me, this sounds like legal ass-covering to be used as a defense should Microsoft ever be investigated for attempting a sort of gaming monopoly. "No, we're not buying out all the big developers so that we control the AAA playing field, we just don't like exclusivity!"
I mean, if they don't like exclusives, why go on to complain about how much they're losing by putting their games on the competing console? Sure sounds like they'd rather not pay those fees at all, maybe... by making their new games exclusives? Hmmm...
I don't think you want that. The availability of consoles at different price points (all lower than a typical PC setup) lowers the barrier to entry for games and makes it viable for new games to be developed. Eliminating consoles would have severe implications to the industry.
Im not getting a console instead of a PC. I have a PC, that I use for many things other than games. If I had no PC, I'd still have my dirt cheap pre-paid phone, that's still plenty capable of playing surprisingly demanding games. And I need this phone at a bare minimum, for work and emergencies, this is the lowest barrier to entry I can go for games. Every generation of every console is an unecessary, additional barrier to entry for whatever corner of gaming they're gating off. PC isnt trying to gate off anything, PC price is purely selling the capability to play more demanding games, run more demanding software, and I can pay for whatever level of gaming thats right for me. And there is no "typical" PC setup, you're thinking of the most up to date and modern PC's that are overkill for anything. Graphics card from 7 years ago and you can play Elden Ring. I dont need or want an iPhone 14, and I dont need or want a 3080. Imagine every single game out or announced so far was available for PC, any game I would want to play, my PC could handle.