You have an opinion about how good the stuff is, and speculate that others sharing that opinion is /the/ reason people use it.
"the main reason" they
continue to use it.
I know as clearly as one possibly can that they use it for that reason.
They have lots of other options and know about them and in many cases they are cheaper. But instead they write letters and talk about how use the stuff is.
So barring a widespread conspiracy to create an imaginary scene by a bunch of Russian bots programmed to make the same kinds of comments about various OSR products in a variety of voices over a decade plus androids or clones sent to cons to stand in line and do the same and willingly repeatedly use games they don't enjoy
while making elaborate arguments expressing opinions completely counter to their own desires for a decade, I am going to assume that peoples' reasons stated are their reasons until someone claiming they are lying or self-deceived can meet a burden of proof for those bold claims.
Your "possible" counter-theory--if its' a theory of why they continue-- requires people to spend their lives literally deceiving each other, meeting with friends for games they'd rather not play, spending money and making game critique and
writing games and modules for games they don't really enjoy as much as alternatives--while others are available and a community willing to embrace them for liking these OTHER games is available-- all for the dubious pleasure of getting harassed online for enjoying OSR games.
It also requires they do it more and more every year for some reason--apparently sitting at their tables playing games they with they weren't more and more often solely to like look "osr" to each other or whatever. For dozens of hours.
Like nobody gets a prize toaster for liking OSR. And there are lots of other people who will give you big internet hugs for complaining about OSR or just playing another game.
Occam's razor suggests they enjoy the games they're playing and the reasons they give are their own. Nothing at all anywhere suggests otherwise, despite that fact that, yes epistemologically,
anything is possible. We
could all be brains in a jar.