OP I kind of get where you're coming from and you're right, any company that wants to last has to be able to adapt to a changing market.
However I think there are some genuine questions insofar as what parts of the market are changing and what rate are they changing at, if certain responses are the right ones or being overdone, and if the companies making the shifts are making sure to keep bolstering what makes them unique in the space, playing to their core/root strengths.
The big changes from Sony the past few years have been to push PC ports, grow their subscription service, and rapidly increase their live-service GaaS output targets. They also seem to be ever-more comfortable with doing remakes. The question is if some of these options are the best call for maximizing profit and easing production budgetary costs, while retaining optimal brand identity and focusing on their strengths. As much as a generally agree with quite a lot of Sony's strategy of late, there are some things they could have done differently.
PC: IMO, I think this strategy should've been 3-pronged as the following.
1: Focus on porting prior series releases to PC within a year of new entries to release on console, and never before then. That way you maximize draw to the console for both hardware and software sales and get PC gamers interested in buying the console where you have full vertical integration and highest profit margins off 1P software sales as well as 30% cut from 3P software and DLC/MTX sales.
2: Keep Day 1 PC releases to ONLY the live-service GaaS titles. Those type of games aren't strongly associated with PS's brand image in terms of 1P, there is less kickback (from the hardcore/core console fanbase) and less confusion (among them & mainstream) by just sticking to those games for Day 1. Plus, if cross-platform play is a feature, you don't want the audience on one platform feeling like they're secondary to the other, as skill level on one could be huge and then that may reduce MTX spending and investment from players on the other platform.
3: Any new graphical/performance improvements or new content for the game as it's ported to PC (within a year of a new sequel's launch on the console) should be provided for the console version either for free or for a very small fee, but preferably the former.
Subscription Service: I think not putting their big AAA marquee games into PS+ is ultimately a sound idea considering the potential revenue & profit losses for said games in upfront sales. However, Sony have to be very careful about the rate in which they add PS5 games into the service else they may condition people who WOULD'VE bought the game Day 1 or for sale, to instead wait for it to drop into PS+.
It's especially imperative they avoid that type of expectation happening with their own 1P titles, so they may have to change a few things. Namely, they may have to pare back the number of free games offered per month to PS+ users or start doing it as one PS1 game, one PS2 game, one PS4 version of a game etc. per month and maybe throw a PS5 game in there once every few months. Currently PS+ Premium is using access to PS1/2/3/PSP games as one of its biggest selling points...that might have to change for the long-term but only in the context where even regular PS+ members can be given PS1/2/3/PSP games for free a given month.
To make up for that, I think there IS room for certain mid-tier 1P/3P-style collaborative efforts (that essentially are based on 1P IPs, for example) to launch into the service Day 1, and maybe a little bit later the game's made available for sale digitally. They'd have to make sure the budgets of these games are ones where such a strategy can be afforded, but the opportunity is definitely there, and leveraging their catalog of classic IP would be a strong way of bolstering such especially considering these may be the sort of games that would not do super-strong numbers with a wide physical release. They could even do limited physical print runs for some of these games after a bit of time digitally exclusive to the service.
Live Service Games: I still kind of think the target of 10 games by end of FY2025 is a...bit much. Unless they are including games like MLB The Show in that mix, or games from competed or planned acquisitions, in which case the number seems a lot more reasonable. I still think they maybe should try focusing on just a couple of live-service games to start with, see how those go, and then go further if the potential is there.
Also one of those should definitely be Everquest or something like it unless, again, there's a future acquisition that basically gives them that type of game upfront.