> These days, there's a dozen screens in the home, and all of them have computing power many times greater than even the original XBox - more than enough juice

> These days, there's a dozen screens in the home, and all of them have computing power many times greater than even the original XBox - more than enough juice to power a huge catalogue of existing games. The TVs and so forth tend to be based on ARM SOCs that have miserable I/O systems; they're pretty good at decoding compressed video, but they're awful at locally generated frames. And they are not platforms in the sense that they have storage in the tens or hundreds of gigabytes range, or decent UIs, or a stable and common set of APIs that developers can successfully target. So the TV hardware isn't sufficient, and the TV software definitely isn't. And you're not going to get (say) Fallout 4 or anything even remotely recent running on your TV without putting a decent GPU in there because now you're talking 100 watts (honestly, more than that) with corresponding amounts of cooling, plus boatloads of flash at $0.50/GB. TVs are a low-margin business. Better to keep the specialty hardware separate so you can stay in business. [Don't get me started on cloud rendering. Capex and latency are . . . I won't even get started]