To your first response: Does PC have legal access to the lionshare of jrpgs or is itdone through emulation? The PlayStation has always been more valuable to PC gamers simply because even PC gamers didn't have access to Japanese games in the past legally.  

Second response: I agree that Microsoft has kept PC close while doing little for PC. When PC was hurting in the early 2000s, Microsoft kept taking exclusives from PC to help themselves against Sony instead of building the infrastructure to keep PC dominant. Sony expanding the market of consoles was becoming a threat to the supremacy and exclusivity of PC because PC devs would see Sony using new formats and would dumb their games down for console in the future Microsoft nipped that in the bud early by using PC exclusives to their advantage as their in to the console market. Console games became a broader revenues stream to typically PC only devs. When Microsoft was using PC, Steam was building PC and this is why no one will take Microsoft seriously Enough to be first place anywhere they go. PC gamers did the right thing telling Microsoft to screw off when they tried to get them to pay for Xbox live. It's obvious what their endgame was  which was to have a fully financed online revenue stream by being the end all be all connector beteeen console and PC under a paywall. Once PC gamers said no console gamers became the primary ones who would fund the venture. Now Sony and nintnedo are doing the same and hopefully it stays with just their console. Sony did the right thing changing the old premium online model to psn plus which inspired game with gold, because you didn't get much back outside of online gaming.

Doesn't matter if it is East or West. The bulk of games on the Playstation is on PC.
Japanese developers are also taking notice and releasing more of their games on PC these days, so your argument is moot.
I am amazed at how many people are getting defensive over this, this happened last console generation as well you know.

And I agree. The Xbox *is* redundant if you own a PC and you only care about games.
The Playstation you can also live without if you own a PC, but there are more gems that can draw you in, which is ultimately the big difference between Xbox and Playstation.

Regardless. If you are truly a passionate gamer and love games, you will own all the platforms and not be strictly stuck to one, these are multi-billion dollar companies, you don't owe them anything.

The platforms are under the brands unbrella. It holds true regardless of platform. So pick and choose. I don't care.

We cannot forget either that the Original Xbox took advantage of the PC's vast library and had some pretty good console exclusive titles like... The Elder Scrolls: Morrowind. Which is also playable on the Xbox 360 via emulation. (And I would assume, eventually Xbox One.)

Morrowind was amazing, sad that Gamecube and Playstation 2 gamers missed out on probably one of the best games of that entire generation.

With that, the Original Xbox shared the bulk of it's library with the PC. There was no real reason to own the Original Xbox as a PC gamer.
And yet... I still got one. - I still have it actually.

Agreed for a good chunk of sonys library, but the chunk of Sonys library that is exclusive is still more exclusive and a selling point compared to Microsoft. There is little to no exclusivity between Xbox and PC now save for Halo. Once Halo is gone, its done. They arent close in that respect. if Nintendo had third party support the narrative that you hold for Sony would it remain true for them as well. The core exclusives for the Japanese brands are not multiplatform. This is where Microsoft becomes the anomaly.

Once your exclusivity is gone so is your indentity. Your console is just an optional vessel for the games that pass through. As I alluded to before, this is what the steam box was going to be. Without exclusives consoles gamers want and an affordable price, it had no chance against the other consoles.

A quick search on Amazon is all it took and both of those were Samsung brand. New.

Steam machines didn't fail just because they've had no exclusives. The main reason they failed is that they've had SteamOS pre-installed and this OS isn't supported by major pbulishers. So it basically had almost nothing but indie games and a few AAA titles. While you could have installed Windows on it, it would kill the purpose of buying this thing instead of PC. Because then you will need to install OS, install Steam drivers, etc, the same as on PC. It kills that simplicity of console gaming when you just press power button, insert disc and play. 

So, with Steam machines consumers were left with 2 choices: either you have very small amount of games to play but with console simplicity, or either you can access all Steam library but you will basically turn your Steam machine into PC hooked up to TV rather than console. I think Steam machines would have succeded more if they had Windows as an OS with Steam Big Picture in auto-start. But then Valve would be needed to pay MS for Windows license which they didn't want to do.

Interesting. So the steambox had so much more standing in its way before it even got to the real battle of competing. Thanks for this information. I will look into it. While I still think the Steam Box would've had a harder time in the console market regardless, its interesting to see the complexity of its issues before it could get its feet on the ground. Once again, thanks for this.

Could very well be. I'm not saying that the Xbox One isn't a good console to get for many people, just for me personally there really isn't any reason to get one.

If bringing paid online to console gaming is being consumer friendly, then why didn't PC gamers want it?

Replace them? Most new IPs don't sell as well as them. Hence, more IPs doesn't mean you have to retire popular IPs.

This is why we're getting a God of War reboot. Could have been a new IP, but the IP will sell more units.

The fact remains that without exclusives there is less reason to buy the console.