Some points I've repeated ad nauseam in other threads but will do so yet again here. Food for thought.
1. Digital distribution, even on a competing storefront (Steam), is still extremely valuable due to avoiding manufacturing and shipping costs and retail cuts. It's not perfect. Ideally you buy directly from the developer (Sony and Microsoft net the greatest returns buying from their relative stores). But manufacturing and distribution alone is very expensive, and digital circumnavigates these costs.
2. Microsoft/Sony make little money on hardware sales. Bulk revenue is predominantly generated by software sales and subscription fees. In fact, hardware itself is often sold to at no gain or even a loss. Nintendo restructured their entire console business post GameCube to avoid this, the Wii selling at a profit. Business strategy does however involve seeding consoles in to homes, as enticed customers even if bringing little revenue do exist as potential revenue.
3. PC and console ecosystems are vastly different. They provide distinct end user experiences with their own unique appeal. They are largely not interchangable by virtue of their function, even if there is a small percentage of people who will give up one for the other for more appealing software or features. Generally, consoles appeal to accessibility and user friendly experiences, one dedicated to gaming and entertainment media with little complex overhead. PCs appeal to power users and multitaskers who use the platform not just for gaming, but also for a large assortment of other functions, ranging from unique and gimmicky to integral (eg: web browsing), some of which factor in gaming and many of which do not.
4. Microsoft and Sony ecosystems are largely interchanagble. This is why the two are in specifically direct competition. Microsoft want the Sony audience. Sony want Microsoft. Exclusives serve the purpose of baiting people from one platform to the other. Differences do exist in general superficialities, like controller design, online infrastructure, etc. But in this day and age, and for some time now, on a surface level they both provide the same degree of accessibility and usability for the average person, and target the exact same markets.
5. Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo as console manufacturers, and Valve/Epic/CDPR as storefront owners, make enormous profit of all software sales on their platform/service. Bulk revenue comes from all games sold on their service/platform as they receive a cut from the entire library. Every platform's library is, by a vast percentage, largely made up of third party software not owned by the aforementioned first parties. Most games on Xbox were not developed by Microsoft. Most game on PlayStation had nothing to do with Sony. And when I say most, I really, truly mean by far and large most. But to the benefit of Microsoft and Sony, they get a cut of each and every one of these games sold.
6. Ergo, long term profits for Microsoft and Sony come from people buying lots of software for their platforms, especially software they didn't develop. These companies cost hundreds of millions of dollars in operation every year, and that's just wages and ongoing projects, not to mention offsetting costs of R&D that lead to the development of these platforms. And so, for these reasons, Microsoft and Sony want you to buy into their "ecosystem". They want you to be an "Xbox gamer" who buys as many games on Xbox as possible, and vice versa for PlayStation.
7. The point I've made a thousand times now, and is important to remember, is that people who buy platforms only for exclusives, and only ever buy exclusives, are a poor source of revenue. The customer sees themselves as supporting the platform holder, buying a console that is perceived as expensive and a good batch of games. But relative to company costs and revenue generated from a single customer, these people are low value. A person who vastly prefers Xbox One for whatever reasons but also buys a PlayStation 4 and over the course of seven whole years only buys ten pieces of software has given Sony very, very little money. It seems like they have supported Sony, but they are a terrible source of revenue because they have not bought into the ecosystem.
8. PC ecosystem is not owned by a platform holder, it is dominated by competing storefronts. This, combined with the aforementioned individuality of the platform versus consoles makes it extremely difficult to transition PC gamers to the console ecosystem. There will always be people who are susceptible; most are not. PC gamers greatly tempted by Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo exclusives are more likely to still purchase the hardware, and still own the platforms, but will fall into the group of people who only ever buy exclusives. Many don't subscribe to online fees. Many don't use the services. Few are buying multiplatform titles on the hardware. They are a dreadful source of sustainable revenue, even if they own the hardware and buy the latest games from Naughty Dog, Guerilla, Sony Santa Monica, and everyone else whenever they come out, because this still only amounts to a 2 - 5 titles a year. All the while they buy everything else, enmass, on PC.
9. Microsoft transitioned to PC for the reasons that should be obvious; if you cannot transition the market, go to the market. Far more money is to be made in the PC ecosystem from a combination of people who A) would have bought the hardware for exclusives, and B) will never buy the hardware but would buy the exclusives if available, than just group A) alongside the trivial revenue generated from the hardware sale. Porting to PlayStation is silly, as it's a directly competing to ecosystem. Porting to PC nets additional revenue from a market of people who want the games but refuse to buy console.
10. Does this impact consoles sales? The data isn't hard yet but indicators suggest no. Why? Because the notion that the PC/console hardware ecosystems are not interchangable works both ways. Majority of PC gamers wont find consoles appealing. And majority of console players wont find PCs appealing. PCs are more accessible and user friendly than they ever have been, but they're still aggressively trumped by consoles as an immediate plug-and-play entertainment device. A vast majority of console players are not packing up their Xbox and PlayStation for PC. They're not interested.
11. There are a multitude of other factors to consider in this situation, but a lot of them are ambiguous or subjective. Arguments can be made for console identity and damage of branding in marketing by multiplatform titles, but this is an emotional argument and evidence has demonstrated this is not necessarily the case in other industries. Arguments can be made that this is an attempt to entice PC gamers to buy the PlayStation 5, and that may be true and it may actually work, but there's no data to suggest it'll have them buy into the ecosystem which is the most important factor of all. It's still new territory for Microsoft but it appears to have been successful for them so far, and they continue to pursue this business model. And so, I am firmly of the belief this is Sony testing the same.
BONUS NUMBER. As a side, what we're seeing here and understanding the console business method should highlight why Nintendo do what they do. Up to and including the GameCube Nintendo was competing directly with Sony and Microsoft. This meant producing an expensive console likely sold at a loss (or break even at best), and reliant on people buying into the ecosystem, thus purchasing a lot of software, to float the company and production costs. The GameCube ultimately faltered as Sony and Microsoft gained such aggressive foothold in the standard industry model that the financial risk of following the same pattern was too costly for Nintendo. The Wii was a shift; a cheaper console using outdated hardware economically viable to manufacture and ship, priced at an appealing entry point, and sold as profit-per-unit. All the while also targeting a "blue ocean" ecosystem, one secondary to the status quo. This meant that not only did they make money every single time a unit was picked up, but the software library as a whole appealed to a new and secondary demographic, building a new ecosystem with its own sustainable revenue from both people who only owned a Wii and those who owned it as a secondary system. It was, on reflection, absolute genius business and shaped their future.
Sorry for the length.
I'm not sorry.