The vast difference with 'Sony's strategy' is that the ability to pursue it economically is largely a function of market performance. That is: the audience, the market, and its shifts have a large hand in the play of things. There's no permanence guaranteed, a vendor has to stay on its toes and can't use these deals as any long term defense against the consequences of fucking over the market.
Consolidation is a totally different beast in this regard. Short term it may look the same, long term the effect on competitive incentives are totally different. Anyone with an issue with temporary deals should have 10x the issue with outright purchase of content at scale, IMO.
There is always this weird fascination with how Sony doing these deals is better than anything else. I think that people are generally being dishonest.
Sony wanted to get to a position where they got back to the dominance that they had in the PS and PS2 generation. Get enough stuff that matters, dominate the industry and eventually get to a scenario where games are on your platform and it is very easy for developers to skip other platforms because they cannot imagine that there is some viability in struggling to put projects on other platforms.
It is essentially looking at the same thing at a different lens. Microsoft got bored of that shit, and there was a time when people that were gaming on Xbox stated that there needed to be a shift in how Microsoft approached the gaming business if they were to go on and have a viable product.
They eventually came to play, and I do not think that that is a negative for the industry.