They are prison, and it has nothing to do with either regulation or using the laissez-faire approach. You are being sold a computer which is controlled by someone else, even after the sale takes place. That's essentially it. Maybe it would even require no additional regulation, just interpretation of current regulation (the essential basics of civil law, that is) which would make a contract of sale of such device invalid, as you're not controlling it, treating it de-facto more like as a indefinite rent contract.
> You are being sold a computer which is controlled by someone else, even after the sale takes place.
Sure, but you are in no way forced or pushed to do that. You only do it if you really want to play their exclusive games. It's a completely free choice in a way that choosing a smartphone isn't (due to various apps being close to required for modern life)
Don't buy the console. Or buy it and something else as well. It's a very fancy toy.
Well, I'm pretty much okay using fully open Linux called postmarketOS on a smartphone, plus Andbox/Waydroid for (sandboxed!) compatibility with Android apps. That's also a free choice.
On pmOS, there's also full KVM virtualization support (works out-of-the-box on most aarch64 devices) for more picky apps, as well.
You're still essentially using either iOS or Android if you want to interact with many banks. Sometimes they will let you use compatibility layers, sometimes not. (I can't access some bank apps on OxygenOS, which is actual Android)
But anyway. I don't want to start the pointless flame war for the milionth time. I think I just have a different definition of "modern life", which is based on using what was considered high-tech not so long ago, like high-throughput radio links and instantaneous worldwide communication (including things like video), without giving up any control. It's not needed to do the abovementioned, so why would I?
BTW, 90% of internet services of any kind still serves "web apps". Which is far from perfect, but gives best compatibility and security out of all technologies we've managed to push to very high adoption.
> Sure, but you are in no way forced or pushed to do that. You only do it if you really want to play their exclusive games.
Personally, I think exclusivity deals need to be banned. The are an inherently anti-competitive practice that does nothing to help consumers.
Given that Sony is historically extremely bad about allowing any crossplay, your argument that exclusive games are the only reason people are pushed into buying a PS is false.
Gaming is part of many people's social lives and Sony deliberately exploits this to maintain market dominance.
Insisting that consumer purchasing decisions are the only or best way to deal with monopolies ignores history and reality.
> However, the videogame industry in its entirety was dead-lifted from its premature grave by one "Nintendo Family Computer".
Consoles maybe, but I don't think that the early 8/16-bit microcomputers were affected by the crash of 1983, and in any case the crash was mostly a US phenomenon with minor effects on other regions.
How is a general purpose computer defined? In any case this argument is moot, the point is that once you purchase something, it's yours and no vendor locks and restrictions should be put on it. You are limiting my choices as a consumer by not letting me access multiple stores or modify the hardware.
Not even this. It probably has a full-fledged browser pre-installed, making its classification as a general-purpose computer pretty obvious even for an average user, and far less "hackish" than otherwise.
It is a general purpose computer running a specialized operating system. Something doesn't stop being a general purpose computer when you change the OS.
