I know it's kind of the reverse of the whole purpose of this thread, but I have to say that the main reason I've switched over to PC as my primary platform is because for some reason I feel I have more freedom with the games I buy.
It really depends on how you look at that "freedom" and "ownership" though. Almost all my PC games these days are digital and probably tied to Steam, whereas most people buy console games on discs they can trade and whatnot, but I think what gives PC the edge for me is the freedom in what you can play them on. I can install REmake on my main gaming computer to play it on my 46" TV, or I can install it on my laptop to give it some level of portability. I know that if I upgrade to a new computer a few years down the line my library comes with me -- that Windows has been probably the most reliable platform for backwards compatibility is probably one of PC gaming's greatest strengths. If I buy a console game though, It's stuck on a platform that's only going to be relevant for a few years. I know other people might see it differently, but that has started to feel really limiting for me. I don't like that I have to have eight consoles in my house to maintain access to all my favorite console games I bought over the years, but on the flipside I've got like 500 great games from a span of 20 years on either one of my PCs or my Steam account. That so many people turn to emulation as the most effective way to preserve classic console games is proof of the advantages of this.
Maybe I'd feel different if consoles were a lot more consistent with BC, or came in more various form factors that shared software libraries like iOS devices. That's why I'm all for iterative consoles with various form factors down the line. "PlayStation" shouldn't be a series of isolated consoles, but rather a cohesive platform where PlayStation games play on PlayStation systems, period.
Maybe what it is, is that the content distributors on PC seem to actually give a shit about legacy content. Console manufacturers are trying to promote legacy games but in the case of Sony and Nintendo it's just come off as another strategy to get people to pay for games again and again. How many times have you had to pay for Virtual Console games on Wii, Wii, U, and 3DS? Sony sold PS2 games on PS3 then sold them again on PS4 with trophies when we were all waiting for the PS1 and PS2 classics we bought to just become playable on PS4. When you buy an old-ass game on Steam or especially GOG though, there's a sort of expectation that this is supposed to be the last version of this game you'll need to buy for a long time. It's preserved. In multiple cases remasters on consoles have been given away for free on PC to people who bought the original game. This is honestly the main reason I can't bring myself to buy Rez Infinite after having bought Rez on PS2 and Xbox 360. On the console front Microsoft seems to be pushing the most for legacy content with how far it's brought Xbox One BC and its intention to keep those games playable on Scorpio and beyond.
Yeah, I ended up writing kind of an anti-console rant, but the way exclusivity to closed platforms has made so many console games feel like disposable products has irked me for a while. I probably care about that more than playing PC games at the highest graphics settings.