Barriers to entry, PC vs Consoles:

• A console will offer higher performance at similar price points
• Building a PC evens out the cost (or pushes it in the consumer’s favor), but requires both knowledge and time to plan and execute a build
• Improper hardware purchasing decisions (which is likely given unfamiliarity with PC setups) can render certain games impossible to play without additional investment
• Maintaining a gaming PC involves managing OS updates, driver updates, chipset and hardware compatibility troubleshooting, navigating increased security risks (uninformed users accessing online services through their web browsers; scams, phishing, viruses)
• Non-standardized hardware configurations means manually tweaking settings of every game, which means again an investment of time and knowledge
• Lack of cross-platform support leading to separation from friends
• Lack of standardized support: going on sparse tech help forums versus contacting Microsoft or Sony’s customer service

I could go on. The point is, there’s a LOT that makes consoles a much more feasible option for someone who does not own a gaming-capable PC and lacks knowledge about PCs. These people are the majority of people, because people who invest time and effort into learning a topic are naturally the minority. Of course PC is the superior choice - IF and only IF you already are ingrained into the PC hobby, or are willing to invest significant time and effort into learning it. To someone who isn’t into tech spheres and just wants to play games, it’s console or nothing.

Now if you want to argue that gaming as a whole would be less toxic and more consumer-friendly without the patronage of console gamers, feel free, but don’t insist that it’s likely (or even possible) that console gamers would simply convert to being PC gamers if consoles went away. They would switch to other hobbies that require similar [minor] levels of investment. They only have so much time and effort to spare, after all.