He literally points out why console exclusives make sense for platform holders as it stands. His point is that maybe MS would actually make more money if they published their IP on all platforms, he even cited Minecraft's popularity as an example of this model working. Would Minecraft be the cultural phenomenon that it has become if Microsoft was in charge from the start and restricted access to it? I think for certain IP and experiences it would make sense to make it available on everything. I would have thrown Halo Infinite MP on literally everything, even PS and Switch, I still wonder if that might happen eventually.
Console platform loyalty is learned behaviour, kids aren't born console warriors, they become them by being forced to choose a platform and then end up trying to justify their choice. Times are changing and now the hardware is less of the platform the games themselves are becoming platforms themselves. It would be brave of MS to break from the current cycle, but it would be cool to see them try.
This is the same discussion we have over and over about why " Nintendo should release their games on other platforms", and the answer is the same as that one.
While the primary goal to any business is to make money, the way you do it is much more complex than selling a product. Exclusive games and products aren't simply a tool to sell your ecosystem, but also to have and/or exert control over the marketshare inside that industry. Nintendo, MS and Sony arent selling exclusives on the platforms they own just because they dont pay commisions that way(and thus make more money per copy sold) but also because they fully control what, how, and when things happen inside that platform. Having control/power over the medium that your products are sold in gives you more leverage and thus, better conditions to sell better on the future.
Not only that, but if you also make your platform more attractive to business partners, because of the big install base it has, due to a numbers of reasons such as exclusive games, attractive hardware and friendly OS, just to name a few, more third party games release their products on the systems that you own, and thus you make more money because of the comissions they pay per copy sold.If you stop making first party games exclusives, it becomes harder to convince people to come inside your own ecosystem, and thus third party devs will be less prone to make games for that system. You could compensate that with better hardware, innovative hardware ideas and a better OS, but in a industry where the software is king, that really hard to do, if not impossible.
And there is also the matter of power.If you are the owner of the popular console/platform, like Steam is on PCs, its basically impossible to not have your games on it due to the sheer strenght of its install base and its appeal. Same thing with the PS4 during the 8 gen. That way, its far easier for you not only to convince devs to put their games on your system, but also for your costumers to buy on your system. You spend WAY less money on marketing, and maximize profit due to sales thanks to that "monopoly", that abundance of influence/power.
That just some reasons why owning a platform makes far more sense than simply going third party for companies like MS, Sony and Nintendo.
Sorry for any typo found in the post.