They still cost the same to make regardless, and they’d still need some form of distribution that would take a cut.
PC games aren’t any cheaper at launch than console games. Console games don’t become any cheaper when the cost of manufacturing goes down over the course of a generation.
I think you misunderstand how the cut works and why they’re subsidized.
Take a look at PC games. Steam also takes a 30% cut, which is the same as what the console makers take. Steam doesn’t have to pay anyone back. The 30% is a pretty long standing cut and is about the lowest most incumbents have gone despite reductions in other costs.
The subsidizing of the console is pre-factored into that 30% cost. Historically console manufacturers have also reduced the amount of subsidization over the course of a generation without affecting the price of the games. The subsidizing is to get it into as many homes as possible, but even a few games purchased over the lifetime of a console would negate any subsidy.
There’s no precedence or indication other than wishful thinking that removing console subsidies wouldn’t remove that cut.
No it wouldn't, companies like Nintendo and Sony make money from selling games on their platform, and they still need to sell as many of their consoles as possible to do that.
