Exactly, the author of the summary is totally confused. He correctly points out that developers are more attracted to consoles right now, but he falsely advocates this as the solution. Remember when the PS3 first came out and the good releases were so slow and spaced out because the processor architecture was so unusual? This multi-monitor gaming thing is different how?
Yes, developers want to make a game that sells. But they also want to make a game that's cost efficient and focuses more on drawing in as much of an audience as possible and not just one factor of that audience. That's why this break through is not going to be an answer, it might help, but it won't change much. Developers aren't going to take the time and resources to make their games fully support multi-monitor gaming. They know the % of people who will have a multi-monitor gaming capable PC (or even more than one monitor), while not having a console at the same time is undeniably insignificant.
The reasons game makers are most apprehensive about PC releases are compatibility issues, lack of predictable adoption due to hardware configurations, and mistakenly they fear piracy. Also you'll find that the established online communities of the Wii, 360, and PS3 are much more natural methods of getting people to buy DLC. The decentralized PC gaming market makes it less easy to distribute and advertise DLC, and unfortunately for developers the most centralized and effective distribution center of DLC for computer games is The Pirate Bay.
The real solutions would be:
Something like Steam to completely take over as a pseudo dashboard / platform for PC gaming, giving unity and simplicity. Developers and publishers should just meet and nominate something for this, doesn't have to be Steam, but it has to be universally accepted and used by gamers and game makers.
A full understanding of piracy and that sales lost due to piracy is significantly less than amount of times pirated. Most people pirate something because they won't pay for it anyway, others pirate as a means to test a game, and piracy means more players which means more advertisement through word of mouth. Piracy is largely not a measure of lost sales, it is a measure of interest and perhaps success if you could survey the amount of people who pirated your content and later bought it.
And of course, the major solution brought up by the parent comment in this article, hardware. The amount of PC owners does not equal the amount of customers in the PC gaming market. Additionally, PC gamers do not equal the potential audience for your game. The closest to a correct assumption a sales department can make is: As the technology requirements are scaled back (thus implying greater efficiency or lesser content), the amount of potential players is undefined. It remains undefined because it increases the amount of people who COULD play and purchase it, but decreases the amount of people who WOULD play and purchase it. Clearly this illustrates a sweet spot, but it's one that developers won't be able to find without getting better market research from customers and pirates alike. How will they better research their pirates? By accepting the piracy and asking them to participate in helping out the people who let them have a free game. Is that a risk people will take? Not likely.
TL;DR version: I agree with the parent comment, catering more to the high-end audience is not a sensible proof that making more games for the PC will be more profitable.
