Video game consoles were extremely limited, as well as being cheap enough that people could buy several, as well as being completely inessential luxury toys, not tools for running businesses and lives.
The scope and utility of a piece of technology is a weak argument in anti-trust debates, in my opinion. You have a similar set of issues with game consoles, too. Why should publishers like EA have to fork over 30% of their PS sales to Sony but Naughty Dog doesn’t have such a restriction? And have you even read about the onerous requirements that Sony imposes to allow for cross-play? And why can’t MS offer a streaming Game Pass on a Sony console? Being extremely limited does not make one not subject to anti-trust scrutiny.