That's a problem for the devs/publishers to worry about, not consumers. The current boom of PC games and multiplatform titles suggests it's not an issue that'll result in the death of gaming on Windows.
They exist on consoles with devices that sit on the network and can only be tackled via the game code.
Of course, but devs/publishers barely fixed this, and yes, some games haven't been pirated, but just because they rely heavily on DRM via netcode, where the game is not rendered locally. That's far from what I'd call an universal experience.
Huh? Like PSN wasn't hacked and details stolen? Consoles are generally as vulnerable as any other networked device apart from piracy. The services used on those consoles are as vulnerable as the servers they run on, regardless of what hardware is used to access them.
Yes, you said it, PSN...
I've never ever experienced a security problem on Xbox Live, and probably never will. Of course, DDoS attacks can take it down momentarily, but my data is safe there. In fact, I'd say that I'd confide my important data there in a jiffy, because it is super safe and because if I ever need to blame someone for stolen data, I know who is to blame on XBL, it's not like that on a random computer or phone (i.e. the famous naked photos of celebrities)...
On an open Xbox environment I'd probably experience what I had to go through when I purchased Diablo 3, I had some issues, contacted support, a ticket opened and I had to send my identity card in the end and stuff like that, for them to believe me.
Why is one guy playing at 120 Hz and another at 30 Hz better than two guys stuck at 30 Hz because their console can't run it any faster? If you're worried about high-end gaming, just have filters on servers to select/force maximum framerate.
That sounds fine and dandy, but the quality of service would be truly awful and the experience would be a total mess.
Competitive gaming in unequal machines is the most deceiving thing ever. Of course, the size of your TV can also make a difference, but that's not even close to what a superior framerate and draw distance, crisper IQ can do.
That problem would have happened on a console's web browser as well.
Sure, that's right. But every time I did a "delicate" transaction involving money, I was never worried about the result on the console.
I just didn't use a browser, but the closed, official software of the console.
The suggestion is leave Windows to handle all hardware. If MS want their own box, or to provide a certification process for IHVs to ensure a minimum standard, that's an option. But there's no need for a specific console when the console is just going to be a PC running the same OS as every other Windows device.
Think about that, and then you realise that this machine you describe isn't a console. Do you really understand what's the philosophy of a console?
A console to me is an economical device that offers an universal experience for everyone.
Samsung, Toshiba, Sony, Acer, Asus, Dell, HP, Lenovo (part of IBM when they started), etc. were all making Windows Tablets before Microsoft entered the market with Surface. Some of them started with Windows XP tablet edition. Most started with Vista. Microsoft started with Windows 8. It wasn't about getting others to start making Windows Tablet. It was to address the claims that there were no quality Windows tablets like the best Android Tablets or iPads. And OEMs were charging a huge premium for mediocre build quality (small volume market at the time). Enter Surface and Surface RT to address build quality. Surface RT was meant to get devices into a competitive price point with Android/iOS devices. At the time Intel didn't have anything appropriate, hence the use of ARM for Windows RT.
Right now Windows Phone is in the position you stated. Although a bit backwards. That started with only OEMs making them. And now it's mostly Microsoft making them.
Because unlike Windows tablets there are quite a few OEMs that are actually making PCs (laptops and desktops) that have equivalent material and design quality to those made by Apple. The Asus Zenbook UX305 for example is something a lot of people buy as an alternative to the MacBook Air. Dell and Lenovo have been competing there quite well as well. There's no lack of PC's competing at all levels from budget and crappy to expensive and well made.
The console space is one that won't be able to be addressed by OEMs, however. The lack of hardware margin means it's not an area where Microsoft could back out (as some have suggested) and have OEMs take their place. That's the one major difference between my comparison between the Surface and Xbox lines. An OEM could replace Microsoft as a high end quality tablet maker. The hardware margins are there even if the volume might not yet be at a level an OEM would feel comfortable with. A console would require component or build quality compromises in order for an OEM to make a profit which would potentially harm the living room experience (mostly gaming) of the console.
The Xbox (and other consoles) is all about, you pay X dollars and you're guaranteed that anything you buy will run just as well as any other Xbox. That guarantee is extremely important.
Hence you'll still have Xbox games and PC games. It may be that at some point all Xbox games will have a PC counterpart. At that point the Xbox branding just means that this title is guaranteed to run the same on any Xbox (of that generation) with as little fuss as is possible. While PC just basically means this game will run as well as whatever hardware you put it on can run it and might or might not require you to do some digging around the internet to get it to actually run. Otherwise you get the whole, why does my Xbox game not run as well on my machine as it does on my friend's Xbox machine? And again, a potential fail and potential harm to the Xbox brand (WRT to the living room console space).
I suppose there could be some system to allow OEMs to brand their PC as Xbox capable or something. But that would require some level of oversight from Microsoft that can guarantee that there would be Zero compatibility problems. If a user has to go to the internet to find out why their game constantly crashes or why it starts to a black screen or why, etc. then it's a failed initiative and harms the Xbox brand. There would also have to be some form of making the Xbox branded game run exactly the same as any other Xbox branded machine, and that might be even more difficult than the above.
And don't even get me started on games that take advantage of IHV specific GPU features. Like why does my friend's game use Nvidia's TXAA or some other feature, and mine doesn't? That's a reality of PC games that people either accept or don't. It's not acceptable for a console game on X brand. Sure there are differences between PS4 and XBO. But there's no differences across PS4 or differences across XBO.
Thank you. This is what I meant. Coming from PC where title performance is greatly variable depending on the hardware it is being run on (the greatest weakness of PC gaming, and simultaneously the greatest strength), I'd just assumed people would understand what I meant.
Regards,
SB
You are a well-spoken person (on this matter, Shifty is too, but I agree more with you than with him in this case).
Don't confuse 'widespread' with 'open'.
And Apple converted that in to $13 Bn in profit, which is a ludicrous revenue : profit ratio. Please don't mention Apple's finances in console discussion, it's f***ing depressing. 
