If they had backwards compatibility, I'd still be a Sony customer probably. The PS3 is where they lost me. I don't think that would have a negative effect on my PC gaming, except maybe less games and slightly worse hardware.

Not I. Way, way, way more than that for me.

All PC platforms, regardless of OS and hardware, are open platforms with the freedom to do pretty much whatever you want, and build and expand on your own whim. Consoles, regardless of how what peripherals exist, are appliances where you have no way of defining how they work.

I would not move from the PC as my main platform, for gaming or otherwise. I have consoles, yes, but they're not my main gaming platform.

Anyway I have a PC, so I wouldn't stop PC gaming. But such a console might have a better chance of also being bought by me. I don't have one and a PC/console hybrid with mouse and keyboard for the living room would be attractive for me.

If consoles had mouse&keyboard controls and full backwards compatibility (thanks GoG team for bringing part of it, by the way), they would be called "cheap PCs" and were totally useless as stand-alone branch.

No, I'm not console-hater, just let's say I don't like "collateral" consoles bring.

What if a console with full mouse control and backwards compatibility WAS PC gaming?
I'm thinking SteamBox, plus GOG's suddenly adding Linux support for SOME reason - co-incidence?

o_O That's barely scratching the surface. I mean, you're not even giving me a keyboard with this hypothetical console...

If nothing else then GOG and it's preservation of a huge back-catalog of awesome?

The thing is that PCs and consoles are both very different and have very different value propositions. Individual people
have different preferences for video games, genres, the types of input controller(s) they wish to be able to use with their system or a specific game, and an endless number of other preferences, likes and dislikes. There is no right or wrong preference, just what the individual's own preferences are. Since everyone has different tastes, the industry produces different platforms and products to appeal to the different tastes of consumers and no one video game platform will ever completely dominate the entire industry likely because some of the very things that one group of people absolutely love about one platform may be exactly what another group of people do not want and you end up with mutually incompatible desires that can not be resolved within a single product. For example, someone might love flight simulators or even a specific one such as Orville's Ultra Flight Simulator 2014 and have bought specific flight hardware, head tracker, rudder pedals and other devices or gizmos. That application may only be available for the PC, or might only be available for the PS4, and if he wants to play it he has no choice but to use the platform it exists on. There might be a flight sim on the other platform(s) but it might not be anything like what he wants.

There is no right or wrong in what he chooses to buy and play, just what is right for him, and as long as there are enough of like minded people out there like him to make a market that is profitable for hardware and games to be sold, the industry will produce it and each type of gamer can have the types of games, controllers etc. they want to have and use the particular platform of their liking for the things it has to offer them that they desire the most.

For me and my 700-1000 PC games that range from 1981 to 2014 and include titles on multiple digital distribution platforms, about $2000 worth of expensive USB input hardware (flight hardware, racing hardware, TrackIR head tracker, various other input hardware and devices) and 20 years of using the PC platform exclusively for all of my gaming needs and desires, I not only get everything I want from PC gaming, but I get about 500 times what I want or need out of it and then some. That is just the perfect match for me personally. There are plenty of people out there that it would not appeal to at all for their own reasons and different tastes and that's just fine with me. I'm glad the market provides us both with solutions that we can enjoy without forcing one of us to have to lose out and use something that doesn't give us what we want and I'm sure in one way or another the market will always provide us with these options so long as there is money to be made from it. ;)

Even the very first playstation supported a mouse, and so do many other consoles.
It doesn't make a diference.

This one?

http://gaming.logitech.com/en-us/product/g600-mmo-gaming-mouse

I mean, with all 20 buttons working and configurable either inside the game or using system level keyboard emulation software that can program macros and has a built in scripting language?

Just curious as that's what I use on my PC. :)

No this one http://www.tcocd.de/Pictures/Peripheral/Sony/scph1090-1_large.jpg
Not many ps1 games supported a mouse but it did do what it needed for those that were supported.
I think Discworld Noir and Blazing Dragons used a mouse.

To a limited extent, yes. But firstly, GOG is a digital storefront, which is a problem for those of us who primarily buy physical. Secondly, GOG's influence is highly limited, and most of the modern triple-A stuff is only available with DRM. It's become apparent of late that GOG has been struggling to get quality titles on board and keeping existing publishers on board. I don't blame GOG for this - I blame an industry that thrives on greed and a docile consumer basis, but the fact remains that you can't get around Steam, Origin and UPlay if you want to get into full-blown PC gaming, which I honestly no longer have a desire to accept.

I think clock tower used it too.