[scheeseman486]

Nintendo have done anticompetitive things before and were legally punished for it. Just because something is video games doesn't make it's business decisions unserious and unworthy of regulatory enforcement.

Steam Deck is a gaming-focused handheld PC. It has a software certification system similar in function to what you see on console. If a user sticks within that environment, they essentially have the "console experience". There could be less friction with stronger certification enforcement, but Valve are consciously less strict for ideological and practical reasons. Is Steam Deck fixed function? Valve seems to intend it to be so, they just provide options for those who want to break free of the default gaming-centric environment.

Sony could provide an optionally accessible VM running a Linux distro, providing access to an open environment to install and run the stores that they want. Would it break their business model? Maybe, but no one is entitled to business models that are blatantly anti-competitive. It also wouldn't prevent it from being a fixed function console for those who want that, given that engagement with those features would remain a choice.

"Fixed function" isn't an excuse to build a vertical monopoly. It's been a long time coming for the console razor blade marketing model to come under scrutiny and Sony meets the criteria of being a gatekeeper under EU's DMA. When I look at what Microsoft is doing with Helix (which everyone else seems to be confused by) I get the feeling that Microsoft is anticipating exactly that outcome and getting out ahead of it.