we're assumming you are purchasing the game to play it  as this what the vast majority of game purchases are made for.Furthermore, 360 is included in the percentage despite not being avalible yet, as of now its about 98% of the market, but even including it and doubling that is still a significant part of the market unadressed. PC is not included in the calculation because the PS4 could easily outsell it.

However, the point of this thread is the last couple of questions in the OP:

You're responding to the title not the OP. Titan Fall is published by EA, not Microsoft, which means that MS bought the 3rd party sales rights for consoles for the game. Had MS owned Respawn and owned TF in the way that they owned Halo, then this wouldn't be up for debate. Continue reading the OP to actually address the questions at the end and add some substance that actually contributes to the thread.

But they're still exclusive to PS3/PS4. And that's the point. There's so much discussion and analyzing of the Titanfall exclusive agreement and how Titanfall fails because it's limited to Xbox One, PC, and 360, yet that makes no sense historically. For decades we've seen sucessful console exclusives. Halo, Gears of War, Uncharted, Last of Us, etc. The list goes on for decades. 

Can we just stop talking about it? Accept the fact that Titanfall is exclusive to MS and look forward to the sequel, which I can't imagine will be locked to MS again.

The only reason its Titan Fall is because EA published it. Had this thread been earlier it would probably be about Ryse (edit: which MS published I believed so its not exactly comparable), since DR is typically "exclusive" to Xbox and Forza is owned by MS. The question is more about how EA is affected, and how this will affect 3rd party relations with MS in general, e.g. more multiplats; less exclusives, thus is it better for MS to buy/develop studios then continue purchasing publishing rights, I mean the fact that TitanFall can even go to PCs shows that they are losing their grip.

Xbox management can do much better for XB customers by building their studios and producing exclusive games specific to the platform (a la what Nintendo always does, albeit on a smaller/slower scale).

Think about it :

Scenario 1 : Microsoft money-hats EA pre-launch, with numbers that predict XB1 being #1 in NA easily. The deal is for exclusivity, and for Microsoft to handle the marketing so that it's for all practical purposes an XB1 'exclusive' (ie ; minimize mentioning/marketing of the PC/360 variants). Microsoft probably weighed the price of paying for the PC/360 versions not to be produced at all, but EA's calculations on possible sales on those platforms exceeded what the bean-counters at Microsoft thought was reasonable.

End result of Scenario 1 : Xbox 1 gets a boost for a few weeks, Xbox 1 customers get one game from that deal (that they would have gotten anyway).

Scenario 2 : Microsoft takes that XX or XXX million, and instead starts developing an exclusive title with a hand-picked talent team well before the XB1's final specs were even set, and then fine-tune it with precision to the final hardware. They also make a deal with EA for Azure server hosting for the XB platform Titanfalls, and market perhaps some minor exclusive content at a fraction of the lockout contract in Scenario 1.

End result of Scenario 2 : Xbox 1 gets a boost AND a new IP to build on. Xbox 1 customers get two games from that deal (same/similar $$$ invested).

Now that we've gotten the math and reasoning out of the way, and the next-gen gap is gelling pretty well (with PS4 well ahead, but XB1 at least highly relevant in the US+UK), the money-hat deals such as what we saw above in Scenario 1 will no longer be tenable. EA would prefer a no-used-games situation where Microsoft ran a locked DRM setup, but the market didn't support that, and with the PS4 outselling the XB1 globally by a sizable margin, any future deal would have to be :

PS4 + PS3 install base multiplied by probable sales on that platform x $38 (or whatever the avg gross return is, somewhere around there, what EA gets back after a typical sale). Let's hypothetically say that by Jan 2015 we have 15M PS4 and 9M XB1 on the market. Combine that with an estimated 55M 'active' PS3 consoles (as total numbers have to be disregarded due to failures, people closeting them, etc). So that gives us : 70M Sony home console platform market. Now let's say that it's a solid AAA title that might sell at 15% install base. That's an estimated 10.5M unit sales for Sony platforms. Total gross? ~$400,000,000. So the deal with Microsoft would have to cover that number, or close to it (EA might be willing to take 'a bird in the hand' as an upfront cash deal is no-risk vs. potentially dropping a dud, though it's pretty easy to see which games will be megahits vs. those that are meh).

Now that the napkin-back math is figured, is it likely that the bean counters at Microsoft would think that $400M (before ANY marketing costs!) is worth it? No, not really. For one thing, that only gets a single title (with Titanfall, a title marketed and hyped like MAD, proven not really to be worth that kind of expense when looking at sales trends). $400M can develop MANY games, even if you account for the creation of the in-house studio. Let's see :

~$100M to buy a building that's purpose-fit for it (on-site Mocap stage, all the sound rooms, bells and whistles galore)

~$50M to buy stacks and stacks of top-end workstation PCs, and heaps of on-site clustered rendering power.

~$150M to retain a staff of 120, divided into three teams, to work on three titles simultaneously. Have a team of 60 for the two-year title, and two smaller teams of ~30 for one-year cycle games.

~$100M for misc dev costs, outsourcing for needed things, location capture, buying scripts from hollywood, buying cameos from stars, etc.

Result? Three major releases, and a fully fledged world-class dev studio, all exclusive to your control.

Or .. a single money-hatted 3rd party title that didn't even begin life natively coded specific to your console.

The choice is clear imho. Money-hatting is lazy, craven, and betrays the very consumers who support you.

Obviously all exclusive titles lose some potential customers. On the flip side, the extra promotion and fan attention of an exclusive title can help establish a new IP like Titanfall or Gears or Uncharted. Money up front can also reduce the risk for an unknown property. Titanfall could have been the next F.U.Z.E. for all EA knew. And without the MS promotion and fan excitement over its exclusivity, it might have been.

Stats always ignore multiple user info sadly.  Learn to live with it.

Unless they have even a dirt cheap PC...

I am playing it on the Xbox One, I don't need to be ignorant of their consoles to realize their desperation to equate to Sony's level of development. The only way they know how is to keep games from Sony.

it could have "sold better than it did"? I didn't realize we were talking about some historical game of titanfall, not a brand new game that released and instantly had a 25% attach rate on it's only release system. (and hasn't released on the 360 yet)