I'd be happy if PS5 + Scarlett are on par with RTX 2080.

But the Xbox One X was also rumored to be on par with the GTX 1080 and it turned out to be on par with GTX1060/RX480/RX580 for most games (of course with exceptions in both directions).

I really have a hard time understanding this mindset. What is the difference between Sony and Microsoft's strategy? Looking through everything they offer, they are almost identical.

Both companies are offering at least a 1080p console and a 4K console. Both companies are offering games Via Physical, Digital, and Subscription. Both companies are offering access to games via the cloud or remote play to your personal hardware. Both companies offer a pay walled online service, delivering online multiplayer, bundled games, and cloud storage. Both companies are investing heavily into 1st party development, and exclusive IP. 

The only differences I see are, Microsoft is bringing their games natively to PC, allowing you to access your library in more places, while Sony is pushing into the VR space and offering a new spin on games. 

I don't understand where this major divergence between the two is. Going forward, both companies will be offering multiple revisions throughout the platform life cycle, both companies will continue to expand their subscription and cloud services, and both companies will continue to invest in new exclusive IP. 

Help me understand what Microsoft is doing that Sony is not also doing, or started doing well before Microsoft.

No they don't.  They have a baseline of what they are aiming for.  They just give you options to turn certain effects off and lower the resolution so you can attempt to get it to run on lower spec machines.  They aren't testing all of these out.  If your PC doesn't run it well, they aren't going in to make specific changes to get it to work, you just need to update your HW.  On the Lockhart, they will have to do extensive testing on it to getting it running 1440p/30fps/60fps on a system that has a much weaker GPU and significantly less RAM.  Sure, you probably will get games that drop into the 20fps range and have variable resolutions, but MS isn't going to be happy if this consistently happens, or the games are dropping into the teens on fps and 720p for the resolution.  That will turn gamers off from getting this "next-gen" system.

This is why devs, not just gamers, are complaining about this.  They feel it's going to hold back their games and/or cause them to put more resources into getting those games running on Lockhart.

Almost identical?  Have you not been paying attention?  Sony has been focusing on high quality exclusives, and it has been paying off in millions upon millions in sales, both HW and SW.  MS output has been lacking in both quantity and quality for the past 3 years.  Spending years on games, only for them to turn out mediocre at best.  And no, just buying up studios doesn't help how MS oversees those studios.  Sony obviously has a bigger focus on pushing HW, with a streaming option there if you want to take advantage of it.  MS, on the other hand, is more focused on streaming.  Sure, they are coming out with HW, but that isn't their main focus. They made that clear when they said the new studios were mostly about getting more content on GamePass/xCloud, and by putting all of their games going forward onto PC.

In my eyes, MS is not fully embracing next-gen HW.  Most likely because they think they are still not going to beat Sony, and it doesn't matter as they turn the focus to GamePass/xCloud.  Their launch games aren't going to be exclusive to Scarlett, pushing the system to its fullest, instead they are using XBO as the base.  And even after their devs move away from this gen, they still have to develop for a much weaker system in the Lockhart.

And VR might not seem like much, but it shows that MS isn't into taking risks, unless that risk has already proven itself by being wildly profitable for another company.  This is actually their MO when it comes to branching out into other markets.  Sony does take risks, and gamers appreciate that.  They may not always work out, but sometimes they do.  Right now, VR is obviously profiting them, but probably not by a lot.  It's something that may start out niche, but could play a big role next gen as the tech matures and becomes much cheaper.  Or it could stay niche.  Either way, Sony is there and MS is not.  And if it does start to blow up, MS will just be late to the party, once again.

MS will no doubt make the dev tools as friendly as possible if this is the case. They apparently focused heavily on the software and dev tools for XB1X, so there's no reason to believe they won't go beyond that to get games running on both next gen consoles as easy as possible. That of course doesn't mean it will be a simple as making one version and having it work perfect on both, but for the average dev, it won't be a big deal overall. Unless all they care about is profits, and how many devs like that make great games you want to play anyway?

As for PS4 to Pro. Did the devs know Pro was coming? If they had an idea, did they take it serious, or was it just up in the air in a manner that they very well assumed it wasn't going to happen, and didn't really plan ahead? Why waste time on scalability, if you don't know or think you're going to need it? Now that devs know a mid gen upgrade is likely, and maybe PS will even be straight up and tell them it'll likely be based on a Zen 6 CPU and RDNA 5.0 GPU, etc, they can be more prepared in advance, so there's less headaches down the road.

As for the smaller devs, well, they may have to put a little more work in for both consoles, or maybe they can focus solely on Xcloud streaming. As long as the game works on the Xcloud server hardware, it should work on every XB console right?

Lockhart and Anaconda would cover at least a few possibilities. It may help them to succeed in the fact that if they can have the cheapest next gen console, as well as the most powerful, they will likely pick up more sales then they would otherwise. More than a few casuals will be swayed if Lockhart is $100 cheaper than PS5. There are also going to be those people who simply want to know they have the best hardware, and won't know, or care, that the games may be playing worse than they would on the single PS5 SKU. They will buy Anaconda, whether it's the same price as PS5, or $100 more.

Lockhart also covers MS butt if Anaconda doesn't do what they want and need it to do, like the XB1X. If PS5 runs away with the high end, then with the MS focus on digital and cloud streaming, they might as well focus on Lockhart and not even bother with a mid gen upgrade. MS could just save the mid gen input costs and put them towards subsidizing Lockhart and getting it as cheap as possible asap. They would certainly sell a worthy amount of consoles that way. Imagine a next gen 1080p/60 casual console that plays the majority of next gen games, yet costs just $249 after a couple years, while PS5 is at $399. Lockhart would sell more than enough units in a situation like that. Meanwhile, MS, like you mentioned, is doing everything they can to get their users to pay for Live and Game Pass.

I wouldn't be surprised if MS focuses more on Nin's hardware choices than SNY's. All you have to do is look at how the last 5 or 6 years have played out, and then take into consideration the Wii and Switch. Why with the clear MS focus on digital services, should they try to compete with SNY in terms of power going forward? Why not be the Switch of the home console market? Cheap next gen hardware that plays the games reasonable enough, with plenty left over for online subscriptions.

I hope developer target Lockhart (that equal to PS4 pro)  as 1080p and 30fps machine, so it can focus on graphic fidelity, and Anaconda will do the resolution and frame rates enhancement. 

But if Microsoft asked developer to make Lockhart as 1440p machine, then it will be wasted on resolution but run with PS4/Xbox One graphic and Anaconda is will be just as useless.

So i still not agree with this lockhart, But i do like it if Microsoft planning to release another Scarlet X like how Sony might able to release midgen PS5 upgrade along the line. It's better, because Anaconda and PS5 will be the baseline instead lockhart and PS5 pro and Scarlet X will be the enhancer like PS4pro and Xbox One X was.

Scalability can happen only on resolution and frame rates as well some post processing effect, but scalability cannot work on game design. They are some games that cannot scale up due to their games design. Lockhart to Anaconda might be OK , but if Microsoft targeting Xbox One as baseline then it will jeopardize future game design and hampering the progress of new type of games that could have never been made on PS4/Xbox One generation. 

Guess you didn't get my point. Games run perfectly fine on a lot of different PC configs nowadays without devs optimizing anything for it as long as the PCs aren't total crap so that just two versions of Xbox won't be like "ohh wow, now devs have so much work to do it's so complicated". They just have to lower the resolution and maybe a few settings which these games will already support on PC as well.

But instead of the PC Player finding his perfect settings for his system, the dev just decides what he will reduce for the weaker Xbox

How much testing is needed for that? A PC gamer doesn't sit there 5 months to find a setting which makes the game playable on his rig.

It's just laughable to think about how this is supposed to be so much extra work especially when a cheaper Xbox would also help to sell more games for the devs since some with less money could still buy into next gen.

It's just two damn Xbox versions, nothing more. Poor devs...

Wasn't MS promoting how they were requiring frame rate parity across the consoles for online? Maybe for single player campaign they will allow for higher res and/or details with 30fps, but in multiplayer I'd guess they will require 60fps. In terms of game design, MS hasn't exactly been doing anything way out of the ordinary this gen, so unless their dev teams have ideas that require focus on only one console, there's not a lot holding them back from having two.

Now MS could try and push Anaconda sales and allow it to shine, by having certain first party exclusives land only on that specific hardware, but will MS be willing to absorb the early software losses? This would allow for both SKU's to exist, and it would be somewhat more like like PS5. If you want the AAA best of the best, you have to get the more expensive hardware. Would XB gamers be ok with this as a whole though?

Or the Switch with 307.2Mhz, 384Mhz, 460Mhz, 768Mhz CPU clocks with either a 1333Mhz or 1600Mhz memory clock modes.

Many effects are driven by the CPU. - Thus you can retain the same game design with a weaker CPU.
Would you like me to list some examples?

There are plenty of games that run and look like ass on the Xbox One and Playstation 4 as developers focused on the Xbox One X and Playstation 4 Pro variants of their games.

It is entirely down to the developer and what they are willing to do.

What gives you the impression that Lockhart will just be a rebadged Playstation 4 Pro?

Also. Scalability can work on game design.

Case in point. Battlefield. - 7th gen multiplayer matches had less players per map with much reduced "interactivity: (I.E. Physics) verses the comparative 8th gen releases.

So... is there really a huge demand for playing console games in 10 minute chunks? I mean, faster load and start up times are cool in general, but is that a major selling point to you? I'm honestly asking.