I'm also not sure that the "but consoles are closed" argument would be a slam dunk anyway, even if they were exactly the same, because I would absolutely support either requiring Microsoft to open up the XBox or allowing game developers to bypass Microsoft's controls.
It's not clear to me why loss-leading consoles are a good thing for consumers. It just means that:
A) games will be more expensive, because Microsoft needs to make more money on them, and
B) a smaller number of games will be made, because the barrier of entry to profitability on any single game will be increased by forcing developers to subsidize Microsoft's costs.
Microsoft is still going to make the same amount of money regardless. They'll either charge upfront, or that cost will be passed on to consumers in the form of more expensive, less experimental games.
So, I dunno. People who make the comparison between Apple and XBox should maybe be careful what they wish for, because I'm more than happy to go after XBox, Playstation, and Switch with the exact same criticisms. I am skeptical that there are many indie game developers who are happy that they need to jump through hoops to get development consoles, or sign NDAs just to target a platform.
The game development communities are exactly the opposite of HN culture, there no one cares about FOSS ideals and stuff, it is all about IP and getting their ideas into the gamer's hands no matter how.
In fact, nowadays I see as a mistake having spent so much time around FOSS during the university back in the 90's, which caused a bit of schizophrenic considerations when going across communities.
The subsidized console increases the total user base by lowering the up front price hurdle. So you’re comparing a world with a small TAM, expensive consoles, cheaper games, vs a world with a large a TAM, artificially cheap consoles, and more expensive games.
I think both game devs and console makers prefer the big-TAM world.
It's not clear to me why loss-leading consoles are a good thing for consumers. It just means that:
A) games will be more expensive, because Microsoft needs to make more money on them, and
B) a smaller number of games will be made, because the barrier of entry to profitability on any single game will be increased by forcing developers to subsidize Microsoft's costs.
Microsoft is still going to make the same amount of money regardless. They'll either charge upfront, or that cost will be passed on to consumers in the form of more expensive, less experimental games.
So, I dunno. People who make the comparison between Apple and XBox should maybe be careful what they wish for, because I'm more than happy to go after XBox, Playstation, and Switch with the exact same criticisms. I am skeptical that there are many indie game developers who are happy that they need to jump through hoops to get development consoles, or sign NDAs just to target a platform.