I don’t think it’s helpful to talk about biases et al, or some sort of conspiracy, or similar. It’s not particularly illuminating.
The main issue, across gaming, imo, is a tendency for people to view everything through a particular lense. That is, what ‘competes’, rather than what is ‘good’. I do think it’s true Sony kinda set the rules of engagement, but not because they’re some malevolent force, but because they make good things people enjoy. The issue comes not in Sony, or in those games, but in the way they’re received. Fan culture and winner-takes-all mentality celebrates these things in a way that means other things that aren’t them get savaged, quite unecessarily.
It’s also true this happens more for Xbox than for Playstation, even when Sony has multiple ‘less than stellar but still very enjoyable games’ - those games (Days Gone, Destruction All Stars, Sackboy, etc etc) find their place and are accepted and enjoyed. They’re given license by the way TLOU or GOW are very very successful and very well made.
The issue I have with this is it’s not treating those games as good in and of themselves - they’re ‘OK, becuase the competition is so in Playstation’s favour that we can indulge these games’. A game shouldn’t need another game to valorise it, to make it ‘acceptable’. That’s weird, but it happens time and again, and the shadow example is MS: Pentiment, Grounded, Hi-Fi Rush etc are only ‘so’ good becuase they don’t fit the competition narrative. Fuck off: they’re just good, that’s actually what matters. The only thing that should matter is you sitting down, with your pad, and playing them. One of my favourite games of the last gen was Recore. Broken as shit at launch, and still I loved it. Ditto Journey (only played on PS4): not broken as shit, but very short and ‘small’ - and I thought it brilliant.
See also how on a few occassions a Playstation game gets a lower Metacritic rating than an XBox one (GoT, HZD / Halo Infinite, Forza) - and given usually Metacritic is the bible in the competition narrative - but in these cases any flaw of the former is waved away, because the genre/production values feel right, and in the latter, gaps or genre become a problem in accepting those games as worthy of more than 'oh yeah, cool, but’. Halo is a ‘failure’ at 87 because it lacked MP content/Forge, but GoT is ‘amazing’ at 83 because it’s very stylistically cool. There shouldn’t be a ‘but’! Get rid of the ‘but’! It does nothing but distract us from the games themselves. Critique and engage with these things as you see fit, but don’t pretend there’s consistency, don’t pretend it’s all about a game’s qualities, don’t pretend the wider noise isn’t influential.
Like whatever the hell you like, play whatever, just stop, all of us, please, giving these stories so much power. I use the review scores example merely becuase the stories valorise those, if I had my way they’d be nuked off the face of the earth. None of this detracts from wanting MS to make good games that don’t have issues at launch, and that are really fun. The problem is I’m playing them already and constantly being told they don’t ‘count’. I want to celebrate games, not corporate profits.