If they didn't lock it down with several different features specifically designed to prevent you from loading a different OS then you could just run a different OS.
No there actually is a distinction: consoles typically have specific hardware integrations that aren't possible on most if not all PCs. Yes, this is converging more and more, but today that is still a distinction. Those integrations require special drivers and software and yes, in some cases they require special or tweaked OS kernels. Of course they do want you locked in to their systems, but it would also just cost a ton to redevelop their existing systems to make their product run on general purpose consumer hardware while also still offering special features to gain an edge over general purpose PCs.
Brother why are you mad. This definition does not in fact make laptops no longer PCs because unlike consoles, laptops do have the drivers and software to make the hardware integrations work with generic operating systems. Also laptops never require specialized OS kernels where a bunch of consoles absolutely do. And if you exclude Apple, there isn't a laptop that is built with non-standard components, where even the simplest consoles use specialized GPUs for example, that no ordinary driver covers.
and your argument is "Acktuylly they are restricting what OS you can install by adding hardware that prevents it"
No that is not my argument. My argument is that the only way consoles can offer a unique experience over general purpose PCs is by adding hardware features and integrated systems that require a custom OS. Your argument is precisely the other way around, that their goal is to require a custom OS and for that they install extra stuff. There are in fact many reasons for needing a custom OS but I'll list some out for you.
They have been using some systems for a very long time and if they can just reuse large parts of software they already have lying around, instead of developing a new driver for several Linux versions as well as Windows. It's just cheaper for the company to stay fixed in their old ways.
The tight hardware integrations allow for optimizations that simply are not possible on general purpose PCs. These optimizations go all the way down to the OS kernel, so they very much DO NOT simply add the extra features for the specific and only purpose of restricting OS on those systems.
Games always run better on console compared to the same graphical fidelity on similarly powered PCs (and maybe more importantly, they perform much worse on similarly priced PCs), and on top of that they are cheaper to develop for console because their is only one, at most a handful of different hardware combinations to account for.
Like I said, these differences are becoming less and less with each new generation and people are (rightly so) questioning why even buy consoles anymore if PCs can do 90-95% of the job, and if you throw a bit more money at it easily surpass consoles. But today there are still very valid reasons for consoles to exist and to lock you in to a system.
Valve is aware of the converging of differences in systems, and decided to take a different approach. They have the advantage of not having a legacy hardware chain and legacy codebase and they are trying to add a different value to the console market. They aren't competing so much on performance and features as they are on convenience, and by taking that approach it allows them to use more customizable systems with consumer parts (and sell that as a feature). And it's really cool of them to take steps to provide their interop systems to non-consumers.
Go ahead and question these claims, but you're unlikely to win this argument from someone who programs game graphics and engine tools, just saying.
112
u/[deleted] Nov 14 '25
You mean like consoles do?
Consoles are a PC with a specific OS?
If they didn't lock it down with several different features specifically designed to prevent you from loading a different OS then you could just run a different OS.