I don't think the choice is between a commercial publisher and open access venues. In fact, open access options are typically my least favorite, because they charge the authors to publish. Maybe the initial idea was good, but the term seems to be co-opted by publishers to basically mean "pay thousands of dollars to publish."
Since I was a student, I've decided as a matter of principle never to submit to either, and been able to follow that principle all the way through tenure. Though I don't discourage external collaborators from submitting papers to those places, as this principle is more about my or my group's papers.
Luckily, there's a couple other options that are very satisfying (and actually most common) in my subfield and most of CS: non-profit society publishers (e.g. ACM/IEEE), or self-publishing (arXiv or your own homepage). I've done both for each of my papers, and haven't felt like I missed anything. I've also declined reviewing for commercial publishers for a while now, and it makes me very happy to have a great excuse to decline.
I am also in CS. My impression is that the situation in CS is different than that in other fields (better). The only publications in commercial venues I have have been with collaborators from areas outside of CS, in journals in their areas.
Since I was a student, I've decided as a matter of principle never to submit to either, and been able to follow that principle all the way through tenure. Though I don't discourage external collaborators from submitting papers to those places, as this principle is more about my or my group's papers.
Luckily, there's a couple other options that are very satisfying (and actually most common) in my subfield and most of CS: non-profit society publishers (e.g. ACM/IEEE), or self-publishing (arXiv or your own homepage). I've done both for each of my papers, and haven't felt like I missed anything. I've also declined reviewing for commercial publishers for a while now, and it makes me very happy to have a great excuse to decline.