Just because it sells a lot
doesn't objectively make it good
Back in the 80s, there were many, many competing architectures besides the x86 that we're now so infamously aware of. And just as back then, doing anything at all on the x86 platform was a mess as well. Judging on pure assembly code, it would objectively be a wonder how x86 got any traction at all. Especially when such code on other platforms could be read by someone that didn't know syntax beforehand and still be understood. The simple fact is that software on the platform had to be hacked up and translated like a boss, and only then did the final result turn out where x86 ended up faster at doing many things than most of these other, more intelligible platforms.
ARM survived for being excellent at what it set out to do, and catering to an appropriate audience. PowerPC remained a strong competitor for some time, until they built themselves into a proverbial corner on the G5 - yes, it was faster than anything before it for Apple, but it also was next to impossible to make one power-efficient enough to live in a notebook. This was the final straw that had Jobs move Apple to intel.
Also, there is the well-known issue, where in... if you bought/made a new PC at the same time as a new console comes out, but upgraded neither, the console would still see and play new games, while more than likely the PC would not be able to play them at even similar detail, or in some cases at all. There's also the fact that you objectively pay more up front for a quality PC gaming experience, while the same money for a console would get you something decidedly worse. But, I digress...
When it comes down to it, there are simply some gaming experience that simply could not be effectively duplicated on certain platforms, and that's why the best way to go about it, is to try and have the different platforms if you can. --
Because, f*ck Sony