"And how many of those owned both an Xbox and PC but decided to get it for PC instead? They are almost certainly gaining software sales by releasing on PC too, but they're also transferring some sales from one platform to another (as any game would when releasing multiplatform rather than exclusive). Besides, console profit isn't just about selling consoles, it's about earning royalties from all software sold on the platform. So it's not just the console sales themselves they're missing out on by releasing their games as multiplats, it's a lot of potential additional revenue that they could have earned through platform royalties as well."
Ironically, Cuphead and Ori are the only games you can make that argument for though. All their major releases are exclusive to the Windows 10 store, which is 100% owned by Microsoft. For their major releases they game 100% of the profit and for their indie releases they gain a much wider audience. I doubt almost any of those Cuphead sales would have been on Xbox One if it wasn't on PC, and even if say 20% of the 75% had an Xbox too, that would still be a loss of 55%.
"Besides, what their games sell on PC really doesn't have anything to do with the success of Xbox, so the question "Why should I buy an Xbox One when I can play a game on a PC" is pertinent. If you want to talk about the success of Microsoft Game Studios as a video game software developer, then fair enough, but that's really a separate discussion from the success (or lack thereof) of Xbox. It's a bit like trying to say Sony's failure with the Vita doesn't count because they were successful with the PS4 (I'm pretty sure Microsoft's PC success is no where near comparable to the success of the PS4 though), but the Vita (like the Xbox) doesn't stop becoming a failure just because Sony had success with something else. "
This is seriously starting to get ridiculous. I've said many times in this thread that the basis of the argument, at it's core, isn't invalid. I shouldn't have to repeat it another 50 times.
And it isn't the same at all, because what is being argued. Vita being a failure is objective, it is a failure because Sony set out to sell hardware and software and didn't exceed at either. Microsoft's failure this generation is not only grossly exaggerated already (i'd say it's more like a moderate success than an outright failure), but THEY THEMSELVES have changed their mission statement from selling just consoles to selling software and consoles and accessories. My point isn't "hurr durr Xbox is successful because of Windows 10", that literally makes no sense and isn't stated anywhere in the OP. My point is that they're playing into the hand that Microsoft wants: Software sales, no matter the cost. It isn't a failure by Microsoft, because it's by design, and it's most likely more profitable than anything they could have done otherwise (unless you want to create a revisionist history that spans back 4-5 years, be my guest).
