Why wouldn't they? There's nothing about handling digital purchases that requires certain hardware.
This isn't about hardware, it's about the way their infrastructure is designed. Depending on its level of flexibility, this sort of thing may or may not be possible.
Folks have been complaining for years that they can't change their PSN names. Sony has to be well aware that folks have been asking for it...they're not that ignorant. The only explanation that makes sense at this point is that their database is designed in a way that doesn't allow it...for example, if each user's data record uses username as the primary key.
Another example: Xbox Live on 360, and the 360's OS, were built from the ground up with cross-game voice chat in mind. PSN on PS3, and the PS3's OS, were not, and the team couldn't find a way to add it in.
Another example: Xbox Live's purchasing system on 360 was not built to support a "Games with Gold" type of system. This is why, if you let your XBL Gold subscription lapse, you lose access to XB1 games, but the 360 games are yours to keep forever.
Then they all need a news flash. Life isn't money, making life about money is where we have went wrong.
I agree with you insofar as people should not make their lives about money. You can't take it with you, you'll be remembered not by how you made people feel and not what stuff you had, etc., yes, I agree.
But that is not the purpose of a company. The purpose of a non-profit is to accomplish a goal while also NOT losing money. The purpose of a for-profit company is to turn a profit. The entire purpose of a company directly involves money...you can't separate the two concepts. The company can't exist without the money.
MS is making these pro-consumer choices not because they love us but because they feel they're investing in their future, as in the future of the company. Not every company thinks this way all the time. They have also done everything they could in the past to retain monopolies on OS and office software. (Google is now a major threat in both of those areas.)
To be fair, i don't really want subscriptions on top of subscriptions and think it sets a bad precedent, along with MS's new Xbox initiative. That's one thing i'm glad Sony are holding out on.
If some people, but not others, want the option of paying $xx a month/year to have access to a huge library of games they can play as much as they want, how does that negatively affect anyone or anything?