[dleslie]

Video game consoles are not general computing devices. Their controlled and curated walled gardens are part of the consumer appeal, and the absence of those would make consoles no different than PCs. If consumers wanted that they'd be buying PCs only.

[loup-vaillant]

Video game console are general computing devices. Their input & output tends to be limited (no keyboard nor mouse, at least by default), but they still run arbitrary programs (namely, any game).

One major, technical differences from PCs, is the uniformity of the hardware. This is becoming less true, but consoles traditionally have fixed hardware. No "works on my machine" problems on consoles. This also guarantees stable performance characteristics, that developers can optimise for. (This is less true now that consoles are resembling PCs more and more internally).

This is even more visible on older consoles: take an N64 (PS2), plug in a cartridge (insert a CD), and voilà you have your game, completely separated from any other program. Perhaps one of those programs could be GNU/Linux, but the default would still to be running on the bare metal, without interference from other programs. Quite unlike the PC there.

Incidentally, I could see a new game console solve the Thirty Million Lines Problem. https://caseymuratori.com/blog_0031 Fixed, powerful hardware with a well defined interface could possibly trigger the OS competition that is so sorely lacking rights now: Windows, Linux, MacOS, IOS, Android, and if you pick a particular niche (Server, Mobile, Desktop), you'd rarely see more than 2 significant contenders.

[shawnz]

Can you still say it runs arbitrary games if you need a license to be able to run them?

For example, is my microwave a general purpose computing device just because I can upgrade the firmware, even if the firmware has to be signed by the manufacturer?

[loup-vaillant]

If the vendor requires a license to let you run software on a powerful multi-media (sound, image, input, network) device they sold you, then I can tell you they put restrictions on what would otherwise be a general purpose computer. In my opinion, such crippling should be illegal.

For instance: the iPhone. It would definitely be general purpose if you didn't have to go through the App Store™.

Your microwave oven is different: minimum input, minimum display, one main purpose (heat food). Properly constructed ones can easily be bug-free on the first try, no need for patches. The firmware may even be fused into a strictly read-only chip. Clearly single purpose.

Personally, I'd tentatively set the limit at programmability: if there's any way to reprogram a machine, the user should be able to do it without authorization from the vendor. (We could make exceptions, for instance break control software in cars: such software should probably be tested to death and vetted by regulation. Preventing users from rolling their own may be justified to avoid untimely deaths on the road. Though "preventing" here could mean "legally disallow" rather than "use DRM". Not sure which is best.)

[dleslie]

> In my opinion, such crippling should be illegal.

But I want that, as a consumer. For example: part of the benefit, perhaps one of the greatest benefits, is knowing that everyone using the device is subject to the same constraints. This makes cheating in online games on consoles much harder on consoles. It still happens, but it's much harder.

Why should it be illegal to sell me a device that limits the use of arbitrary code? I _want_ that in the product I'm buying.

[loup-vaillant]

Ah, yes, cheating. Yet somehow, we have competitive games on the PC. So no, I don't buy that argument.

[dleslie]

PC competitive games are rampant with cheating; the cost of keeping cheaters off games is so astronomical that only major studios can afford to do it, and even still, cheating remains rampant. It's why cash prizes are fought over in hardware controlled venues.

While on consoles... It's much better.

[dleslie]

> but they still run arbitrary programs (namely, any game).

They run authorized programs, not arbitrary programs.

[tass]

They can continue to use the PlayStation store, continue to have exclusive games, and need not see any difference except by choice.

What is the downside?

[dleslie]

The hardware prices increase due to the loss of license fee revenue.

[loup-vaillant]

Console vendors aren't allowed to sell hardware at a loss. The price increase would be mild… and a truer reflection of the costs of owning a console (less hidden costs from the walled garden aspects).

[dleslie]

Sony took a loss on PS4 sales: https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/09/20/sony-to-tak...

This is normal.

The price increase would not have been mild - at the time this was written, it was the cost of a full game. When most only own a handful of games that's a significant difference.

[loup-vaillant]

I stand corrected, thanks.

Tells us something about the real price of that console, though. People don't see the price of the walled garden, since (i) it's always been this way, and (ii) it looks like the garden is providing flowers (in the form of a store). Such hidden (or externalised) costs are a bit of a lie. I'd rather be aware of the true price of what I'm buying.

[dleslie]

Flowers without weeds and gardens largely free of pests.

[smileybarry]

This is more of an anecdote as someone already linked the PS4 example, but: Sony lost on each sale of the PS3, sometimes a lot ($300 on launch), for years. After 4 years, they still lost around $18 per unit lost[1]. It was a costly bet that ended up not working out for them as the PS3 continued to be expensive to manufacture, while also being too complicated to program effectively. (Worse ports, perceived lower performance due to SMT differences compared to the 360, etc.)

[1] https://www.cnet.com/news/sony-still-losing-on-every-playsta...

[jiofih]

The same can be said of Macs and iOS devices.