> not being a general purpose OS. Sony actually took at away that ability in the PS3 so they aren't trying to pretend they do more than play media
This is just assuming the conclusion. They're general purpose computers that could run arbitrary custom code if their owners weren't locked out of them.
And so are appliances and HVAC systems and so on, which is exactly why the owners shouldn't be locked out of them -- this has significant implications for the entire concept of ownership, right to repair and environmentalism etc. They're all general purpose computers, and they should be.
> the hardware and software is ephemeral. In 10 years IOS and Android will exist. We will likely be on the PS6 and 2 more generations of Nintendo in that time. There's less incentive to bother opening up an OS that is abandoned every generation.
But this is making exactly the opposite argument -- it should be opened up because otherwise it will be abandoned and no one else can support it. Likewise, the newer system should be opened up so people can make it run the older games, or the games from other systems from other vendors, whenever possible.
> due to the model of consoles, most of them lose money on sales so they can invoke more software sales. And on top of that, larger studios get direct support from Nintendo/Sony. There is negative incentive for a studio to ruin this relationship unless more companies start making consoles themselves.
This is called a predatory business model, the equivalent of printer makers selling the printer below cost so they can stick you for the ink. There is a serious argument for banning it outright; it's certainly nothing we need to worry about protecting.