[sosull]

I think there's a reasonable case to be made that consoles (and the vertically integrated business structure that they represent) inherently encourage more diverse kinds of games development while also attracting new buyers. Their business practices aren't ideal, granted. But it's not entirely clear to me that a walled garden constitutes a true monopoly. That is to say that the console makers aren't using their control over their own systems to force their way into adjacent, unrelated markets.

Also, the standard for what constitutes anti-competitive behaviour is different in the Americas, Europe, and Asia. The US uses higher pricing as the prime signal, whereas the EU uses a lack of viable competitiors.