[tomnipotent]

None of your examples pass any of the checks for a monopoly unless you twist the definition of "market" to be the narrowest possible. Situational exclusivity is not the same as a monopoly, and these examples don't pass the hypothetical monopolist test or the cellophane fallacy.

[someonebaggy]

Their definition: if a substantial group of buyers has no reasonable choice of seller, it's a monopoly situation

[tomnipotent]

The Supreme Court ruled once on what they consider an aftermarket monopoly against Kodak in the 1990s, but the aftermarket angle on monopolies has been basically abandoned from a legal perspective because it was shaky at best.

Both iOS and Android both generate more in gaming revenue than Sony. The PC gaming market is only slightly smaller than the entirety of the console market. It's going to be very difficult to make an argument that customers don't have reasonable choice, and the recent case against Apple set precedent that owning the single channel of distribution to a product and platform you own isn't monopolistic unless you do shady things like Google did.

Sony's exclusive rights to distributing games on its owned platform and console will not give it pricing power (won't pass SNNIP) or exclude competition.

Sony can be called a dick for what they're doing without it also having to be monopolistic. People are right to be angry and calling them a monopoly over it is being cathartic.