You are misreading what i am saying. I never said zero competition. Sony competes with Nintendo, PC and Mobile to sell PS5s. Steam competes with Windows Store and Apple Store etc. There will always be someone competing. If you dont trust the company you support than stop supporting them.

They all want money however its how they earn your money is the important part of all this. Steam basically had a PC monopoly for many years and it thrived as one of the best values in gaming for so long, before EGS existed. EGS isnt earning your money by offering a better platform, they are moneyhatting to force consumers over. Big difference and is not needed. But if you like your PC library chopped up on many different store fronts, than thats your preference, not mine.

How does MS compete with no Hardware? Lets see. 

PCs, Mobiles, Tablets, TV streaming etc. They are already trying to implement GP on UHD TVs so you can play games directly off your TV. Selling 50m consoles is nothing compared to the PC, Mobile, TV market. Its an extra expense having console hardware when they can go full digital/Streaming. .

So there is your answer.

So it comes down to, do you need to spend hundreds on a console that will be dated in years time or just gain access to the games already on your current devices like your home TV.

So your first paragraph is something you need to think about.  If you do not trust the company you are supporting, than stop supporting them.  That is a great line if you have options.  In your scenarios, if I do not like Sony or trust Sony, with the absences of MS who do I go to Nintendo.  That would mean I would have to skip all the high end console games because the majority cannot be played on Nintendo system.  Do I go to PC, not all console games make it to the PC platform.  The question is never about if I trust a company, the question is that the market with competition gives options when a company breaks that trust.

Competition will always exists. We don't need flooded markets and companies trying to change the industry which can hurt the consumer. We have seen this from EGS with their anti-consumer business practices. Xbox will still exist, just as an Eco system. DO we need EGS? No, because if Steam stuffs up, they have Windows Store, EA Origins, U-Play, GoG and just about a dozen more store fronts people will migrate to. 

You continue to act as if Valve will never break your trust but its not always about trust of the consumer.  There are other dynamics to this than just the consumer.  There is also the developers and other vendors that uses Steam.  Without competition, Valve can always set whatever price they want.  They can raise prices and always seek to maximize profit over everyone else.  Currently Valve is not public traded company but who knows if that will remain as such.  If they do, then they have to answer to investors and the scope and dynamics of the company could change.  Any change in leadership can cause policy issues to change.  There is never a guarantee that what you believe Valve is today, will remain that way.  On another note, because Valve has been a digital monopoly for years, they have never needed to change their licensing structure.  So they can always charge 30% cut on game sales which mind you is something you do not feel but you can believe other companies do.  Now with MS store offering less of a cut including ESG, if those store front gain any traction over Steam, Valve will have to respond.  This dynamic in the market just seems to ignore because you like steam but that is not how any market works.

Maybe they will one day but they have proven that you can have a monopoly and still be the best gaming service in the industry. Maybe Valve might be brought out one day but as it stands, EGS tried to stir the PC pot and created plenty of backlash. That is not good competition. Good competition is if EGS entered and created a service on par or better than what Steam offers its customers.  

MS already sell their games on PC.  Gamepass can already be used on mobile.  TV streaming is no better than steaming on Xbox which no one really uses today.  Basically you are giving examples that MS already have in the market that has not elevated MS overall sales today but somehow these specific points is going to elevate MS now.  This is the part that does not make sense.  Its as if you are offering something MS doesn't already do today as a solution to tomorrow when those options today isn't bringing in the subs.  Then magically because MS get rid of their hardware, those same options they do today will  just increase 10 folds.

Since console hardware still exists, the Streaming/Digital market wont fully take off. Once you remove the hardware option people are going to flock to the most convenient Streaming service they can find. 

I do not know about you but I have a gigbit internet connection and even I do not use XCloud because while its ok for some games, its no where near what it needs to be for any fast pace game.  Even still, if you have multiple people in your home playing music, playing MP games, watching TV all that eats up your net connection.  Your solution only will actually be good for a very limited amount of people in the US alone compared to around the world.  SO just from my experience with XCloud before I had a fat pipe to when I did not, naw, streaming is a ways off.  One last point on streaming is data caps.  So a lot of US providers have those data caps which means once you go over that limit you get charged more.  If you want a no data cap net, you have to pay something north of 150 bucks.  Most households cannot pony up that kind of dough.

I don't disagree with you with this point, unfortunately that's how it goes. However, based on the Streaming Networks for movies, people have no issue signing up to multiple Streaming networks to watch TV shows so this will just be another adjustment we make moving forward. Just because i am saying this doesn't mean i support it either, its just how i see the reality of the situration.

It doesn't matter what you want, the market will determine who remains and who does not.  The market will weed out companies that cannot provide a product to entice customers and vendors to their platform.  The dominate platform today may be gone tomorrow.  Have we not seen that just in the gaming business alone.  There were many players that have come and gone, there will be many players in the store front that will come and go.  Some who are big today may be marginal tomorrow, that is how competition works.

Exactly, and soon we will see another one go. 

The situation is that a monopoly is never great because sooner or later, the companies will always fight to maintain the monopoly more than they will fight to stay competitive.  Its not like we do not have years of evidence to this fact.  Also you continue to state that ESG come into being because of Steam, but I totally disagree, ESG came into being just like all they services, to make money.  Its not about them trying to take something away from Valve as them trying to entice customers to their platform, that is what competition is.

Depends on the market. It worked perfectly fine for decades on PC. EGS tried taking stuff away, they literally moneyhatting games off Steam, that's taking away from customers to benefit their own inferior service. If EGS wants me to cross over than they need to do it with their own games and offer me a better experience. They are not.

This point does not make sense, the only way that the streaming market would take off is if all the OEMs would go streaming, not the 3rd place console.  The 3rd place console has no authority to dictate the market.  No one is going to flock to MS service when they can get a hardware download service in PS+ that also will have all the exclusive console games from 3rd party developers studios and Sony own output.  Are you forgetting that Sony also has PS+ which is the same as GP with the only exception of putting their own first party games on the service day one.  The company that would actually be hurt the most would be MS.  First, without console hardware, their 3rd party day one release, how will that work.  As a studio why would you go with MS when now when there is no hardware option outside of the PC.  You have a game that you are making for consoles, your only real choice would be Sony or Nintendo.  MS without a platform would be your absolute last choice.  Next we get back to the same point, would Sony or Nintendo allow GP on their platform to compete with their own online service.  As multiple people have stated, if Sony or Nintendo did, that service would be neutered because there is no way Sony and Nintendo is going to let another service eat into their own.

This is why MS is buying up publishers, once they own the big publishers, they can determine the push and need for their services. If MS own CoD and made it only playable on GP and Sony want CoD, guess what Sony will have to do? See my point? 

The problem with using TV and Music compared to games is that TV and Music are not interactive.  Meaning that each can be buffered so the stream does not skip or have issues while its sent to your home.  You can still enjoy those streaming options even though they are not at the quality level if you purchased a BluRay 4K disc.  Steaming a game is totally different.  Case in point, I used XCloud to play Marvel Avengers game because I wanted to know if it was any good.  Just walking around on the Helicarrier was a laggy mess.  Every time I turned around the delay and laggyness nearly caused me to throw up because of how bad it was.  Now this is with my gigbit net connection with no body at home at the time using the net.  That experience is not going to be something anyone is going to sub to.  I did the same thing with Ghostwire Toyoko which was not as bad but Ghostwire Toyoko controls are such a pain in the butt that online its a freak mess.  I had to fiddle with the controls in order to get a sweet spot which took about 30 mins of playing around with the settings but the thing is compared to local, those control issues are magnified even greater.

Yes, unfortunately its still an issue but nothing is unplayable. Majority of people wouldn't won't care how it's played, as long as they can play it and gain access to it. On the hardcore audience, they won't be happy, but if it saves parents $700+ buying consoles for their kids, than their kids and family will just opt for the second best thing. 

Anytime someone offers a logical and realistic takedown of one of the arguments, it’s always met with some nonsensical dismissal.

Microsoft will lose shit tons of revenue from services and licensing fees and digital cuts? Oh well that’s fine, they’ll suddenly have hundreds of millions of GamePass subs to compensate!

well, streaming pretty much sucks. Games lag too much. Oh well that’s fine because they’re not unplayable! People don’t even care if the games are a laggy mess, they just want to play them!

Actually in many cases the games are unplayable. xCloud is a nice alternative for some games if you’re out and about and away from actual hardware, but it’s still way too laggy to be the norm. And people do care how the experience is.

MS won't lose billions in RnD and selling consoles at a loss. All they need to do is focus on their strength which is Cloud/Digital.

Streaming is okay, it's not perfect however it will only improve in the coming years. 

The casual gamer and average parent who cannot afford consoles make up a large audience. Kids at school play Fortnite on their phones, they wont care of a little lag. I've played WoW since 2005 where I average 1000ms playing on a US server, i still played and enjoyed the game. 

The casual gamer and average parent who cannot afford consoles make up a large audience. Kids at school play Fortnite on their phones, they wont care of a little lag. I've played WoW since 2005 where I average 1000ms playing on a US server, i still played and enjoyed the game. 

Casual gamer and average parent who cannot afford consoles?
A $300 console like the Series S can be used for ~7 years, that's $3.60 per month... and still has better image quality that most streaming solutions.
A $500 console can be used for ~7 years, that's $6 per month. 

But tens of millions of them (who aren't already in the Xbox eco system) will pay GamePass Ultimate to get xCloud access for $15 per month?

For a worse gaming experience?

Plenty of parents and kids simply cant afford a console. If the option is already built into your TV or smart devices, they will chose to accept the free access.

When was the last time you brought a high end camera? Knowing your Smart phone has one built in.

Majority of casuals dont care about superior experiences. Look at the average gaming PCs, Majority are not running 3080s. They are probably already playing games on ancient tech which will be causing issues.

For the hardcore audience or gamers like yourself, sure, buy the hardware but the majority of the gaming market is dictated by the casuals.