So what you're saying is that consumers aren't loosing access to games at all. They aren't forced to choose one to the exclusion of the other. Other consoles aren't forced out of the market. And other console manufacturer will have a market incentive to invest into similar games, to entice people from buying a second console...

And the market that would actually care, will already own multiple consoles... and a gaming rig.

You've actually managed to convince me that this is good for the market, not neutral.

I can't tell if you're joking, but I hope you are. Having to pay more to access the same products is not a net loss to the consumer?

You're stretching the term "same" to mean "new products created for a different use case". (5G is a net loss to a consumer, because you need to buy a new phone to access "same" product.) Same products are quite clearly not same here.

Consumer doesn't mean "a specific individual that owns a PS5", it's a generic term meaning market participants that consume products. Consumers don't loose if prices for new products are substantially higher in a competitive market, because willingness for a consumer to pay the price in a competitive market equals to the value of the product.

Interactive game market is highly competitive. Therefore producer prices a product at $500 => consumer agrees that $500 is acceptable => consumer spends $500 => consumer gets $500 in value => cost - value = 0 => no consumer net loss.

You're essentially making the argument that games are fungible while the other commenter is saying that they are not. The reality is that most games, yes including triple A games, are hot garbage and make no money and provide no benefit to everyone. It's a lot like the movie industry in that sense. So consoling myself that maybe someone will make a copy of the cool game I want to play doesn't really work, because that copy is near guaranteed to be expensive garbage