There is one argument for Synology doing this: There have been cases where hard drive companies mislead their customers. I personally fell victim to this when Western Digital started selling SMR drives as WD Red, without labelling them as SMR drives.
So lots of customers thought they were buying a drive that's perfect for NAS, only to discover that the drives were completely unsuitable and took days to restore, or failed alltogether. Synology had to release updates to their software to deal with the fake NAS drives, and their support was probably not happy to deal with all the angry customers who thought the problem was with Synology, and not Western Digital for selling fake NAS drives.
If you buy a drive from Synology, you know it will work, and won't secretly be a cheaper drive that's sold as NAS compatible even though it is absolutely unsuitable for NAS.
Which WD drives specifically were misleading customers?
It's fine to have 'Synology supported drives' which guarantee compatability, but requiring them is absolute bollocks.
My experience with getting battle.net on lutris was miserable. After staring at the UI trying to add battle.net I was informed to go to a site, pull back a script on there and I had no indication of what it was doing to my machine.
However, bottles ships with scripts to set it up for you. I created a bottle in the location I wanted, installed battle.net and logged in and it worked.
Its not without problems, if I accidentally start battle.net twice, my CPU utilisation shoots up to 100% and is stuck there until I kill the bogus bottles process.
There's also a problem of the battle.net bottle bricking itself completely (I have to move the game files out, delete all bottles configs and recreate the bottle) if I change the runner.
Whether these issues are bottles fault or not I can't say.
But concept of what a 'bottle' is is easy to understand. The configuration is very rich and works well. I pick a pick a directory, pick a runner, install what I want, enable mangohud and I'm golden.