People keep giving these expanded definitions of "toy" in order to support their argument, but there's one thing everyone is forgetting to consider: context.
In the 90s, when consoles were called "toys", what were they described as? A child's play thing. Something made to be played with by kids. And that is the typical definition of "toy" when you look up the term (not the 3.b.1b definition).
This is why "designed to be played with" doesn't hold. This is why "provides entertainment" does not hold. A guitar is made to be played with, but it is not a toy. It is an instrument. A book provides entertainment, but it is not a toy. It is a book. A GI Joe is meant to be played with by kids. It is a toy, by primary definition and in conventional/practical usage. If these were all the same, we wouldn't have such vastly different ways to describe them. Think about it. When you tell kids to go to your room and play with your toys, they don't whip out Monopoly boards, DVDs, iPhones, and a copy of To Kill a Mockingbird.
So, while you guys can go ahead and give some wide ranging definition of "toy" (which then, by extension, makes everything in this world a toy), in the context of the 90s belief of "video games are toys", no, video games are not anymore. Because they aren't made to be played with specifically for kids. If you want to say they are just because you can play with them, then the next time some toddler is smashing your phone against the table, don't snatch it from them and say "this is not a toy". When a kid gets in your gun safe, don't tell them to get away and say "these are not toys".
If a toy doesn't have an objective definition (something for kids to play with) and only has a subjective one ("well...it's a toy if you derive enjoyment from it"), then you have no right to take anything away from them. It's a toy to be played with. If you take it away and say "this shouldn't be played with" then you're being contradictory to yourself because if the kid is being entertained by the above mentioned items, then they are therefore toys by your definition. Can't say "this shouldn't be played with" all the while saying toys are "things to be played with for entertainment" and then turn around and say a phone, for example, is still a toy.....even though toys are meant to be played with (but you just said the phone shouldn't be played with).
