I don't know if I commented in this thread, so these are updated thoughts potentially:

I don't think it's great that MS essentially moves away from hardware, but it does make console buying a lot easier for everyone: just get a PS and a Nintendo device and you're covered. PC if you're into that.

My concern is really how do they sell GamePass if they exit hardware? Their hardware is clearly the easiest gateway into that GP subscription. Would Sony/ Nintendo allow it (like how they do EA Ubisoft)? Honestly, I feel like if they don't then this gonna work out for MS.

That said, it's clear that going multiplatform with their games is all about revenue. They aren't getting it from physical on their own hardware, and I imagine that GP isn't really as profitable as it needs to be to get it from there. 

Asd for moving away from physical media... not great for ppl who want it, but it doesn't matter to me since I've basically moved digital for the most part. 

"Be careful what you wish for" is going to come to mind in a decade's time, competition was good and will always be for consumers.

Why don't you think it's great if MS move away from Hardware? You don't game on Xbox so how does this affect you in anyway shape or form?

The way I see MS working GP into other eco-systems is to stop selling competitive products like Hardware. Many fail to understand the pull GP has. Sony actually gains more customers if it became an option. More people will buy PS knowing they have the option. More PS sales = more money.

Sony won't accept GP now, because MS has the Xbox Series S/X as a competing platform, the moment MS drop hardware, Sony won't have a threat in the highend console market, and they will gain a treasure trove of IPs from GP and an extra audience to follow. 

Good for who exactly? Because I can tell you from a PC standpoint, MS dropping out of the console industry has no effect on me and many others.

Weird take, so you're for monopolies as long as it doesn't effect you? Take whatever bias out of it, in any industry competition is good and drives innovation and value.

Steam practically has a monopoly with PC gaming, and PC seems to offer the best value in gaming. If anything, competition actually started to hurt PC gaming when a lot of brands tried to create their own store fronts which started separating game libraries and friend lists. Epic literally removed Metro Exodus from Steam which had actual Steam pre orders. PC proves your point wrong.

Also, it won't be a monopoly in the console market, have you forgotten about Nintendo? Sony will just control the high-end hardware market, but they won't have a monopoly.

Not a good outcome imho.

Nope, the reason Sony doesn't accept GP on its console isn't because Xbox have a console, it is because it have a lot of titles that compete with their PS+ or retail revenue. If GP on PS had only xbox exclusives I could see Sony accepting it like EA and Ubi.

Can you tell me why you believe it isn't a good outcome?

MS can create a version of GP with full 1st party support, similar to how PC have a slightly different GP than Xbox etc.

I listened to the podcast with one of the Zenimax guys and my impression from there is that the guys at Microsoft actually believe that they can make most of their games multiplatform and most of their user base will still stick around because of their invested libraries and Game Pass and such. Suffice to say that I disagree.

Personally I think it’s more good than bad that Xbox goes away. There are already too many platforms. I would very much like to see a new Steam Machine initiative though.

I have already said earlier on the thread why I didn't want MS leaving console space.

Regarding your second point yes they can do it (don't depend on they having a console or not getting out of hardware imho, but for me even if they leave console making space be 100% or through licensing the HW for 3rd parties if GP have other publishers Sony won't allow).