Yeah, this doesn't make a lot of sense. Honestly, if a globally competitive company had a choice between buying the Nintendo brand, the Playstation brand, or the Xbox brand, would they really pay more for the rights to the Xbox brand? Would that really be their top choice? Maybe, if the bulk of their operations were in North America, but even that is a big "maybe". Worldwide? Not a chance.
The only reasoning I can think of is that Microsoft has, at times, really tried to force the Xbox brand as being more than games. "Xbox Music Pass," for example. That's just what Microsoft does, they constantly rebrand stuff, which is kind of silly and annoying, especially if you work for Microsoft and half your Knowledge Base is out of date. Meanwhile, they have competitors who build incredibly strong brand recognition by staying with branding schemes for decades--like Apple sticking an "i" in front of stuff. Xbox Music used to be Zune and I believe it's now Groove, but who really knows with them--it might be rebranded as something else tomorrow.
"Xbox" is also on PC but, honestly, it's mostly for those who haven't discovered Steam yet or those who use Xbox consoles and are determined to stick with it.
So, the only logic I can see is the idea that "Xbox" does a lot more than just games but is the brand really meaningful in those other areas to the point that it would push the lagging gaming aspect above more successful competitors? I don't see it and the company responsible for this ranking really needs to explain their reasoning in concrete and tangible terms.
