No, it's not about commitment to SP. It's about exclusivity to SP.

It's hardly our fault you don't understand what words mean.

But, you're right - CDPR aren't exclusive to SP - and they've never claimed to be.

Meaning, your entire point is null and void.

Basically, what is written here is that dropping SP elements to make room for a MU is showing commitment to SP.

Elements add value to a SP gameplay but they can not find a counterpart in a MU so the path to show commitment to a SP product is to sacrifice the elements that are not compatible with MU.

One wonders what a lack of commitment is.

What next? Claim to be committed to freedom and indulge in slavery? Oh wait…

There is another way, quite simple. No interest in SP. It can be told outright. SP is put on the same level as MU, they are indifferent.
SP, MU, it does not matter. If one is sacrificed for the other, then it does not care.

It excludes commitment because commitment involves caring.

No, what's written here is that dropping SP elements for MP (I don't know what MU means, but I assume it's MP) doesn't mean there's NO commitment.

It's not rocket science.

If you work late on your job one day - because of some emergency, does that mean you're not committed to your wife?

You can't make it up to her in some way - some other day?

Hardly.

Again, nuance.

No. There is again another shift. It is about commitment, not exclusivity.

SP and MU are not fully compatible, they might overlapse here and there but it is not possible to take the SP route when including MU.

Anytime it is done, then SP is subordinated to MU and elements that work and add value without finding a counterpart in MU must be ruled out.
Their elimination is commanded by the implementation of the MU side.

MU curbs SP and putting oneself in a position to remove features that fits in SP because they do not fit in MU is not showing commitment.

This studio is no longer committed to SP, it has shifted to something else.

Again, you're talking about exclusivity. Your mind can't grasp the concept of compromise and commitment existing together.

Meaning, you don't understand the fundamentals of any relationship - including the relationship between great SP and great MP.

It's like talking to a wall.

No. Again shifting.

Being committed to a job or a wife means nothing as it treats things in insulation.

Now being committed to a wife who wants his husband to come back for dinner hours and staying late at work shows the end of commitment. Something must yield.

It means nothing. The wife could be someone demanding his husband to work late at night. In which case coming back early is no longer showing commitment.

It stands on nothing. Devs can be committed to SP and committed to watch their favourite TV show.

Again shifiting.

A relationship can be the result of compromise as it might not be.

The commitment to it does not depend on it.
Being faithfulness to a partner might be the result of a compromise. Staying faithful shows commitment. Having affairs, not.

As to being a wall, of course. The words are empty, people who speak that way are usually the first to bail out of their own way of thinking.