I mean you have literal proof of what happens when Sony has no direct competition ... the PS5 got a price raise in every market region basically did it not?

Which region did they not raise the price in? The US market. Why didn't they raise the price in the US market? Because that's the one market the XBox is the strongest competition for them, they didn't want to raise the price in the US because they knew that it could help the XBox. Sony knows they have to price competitively in the US market because it's the market XBox is strongest against the Playstation globally. 

So you can wax poetic about MS going away all you want Sony fans, but those of you in the US should also know this plainly -- if there was no XBox, your ass is paying an extra $50-$100 for your Playstation 5 hardware.

That's what happens when there is no direct competitor.

This.

The question in the title asks do "we", presumably being gamers, need Microsoft. People respond with the benefits that Microsoft being in the industry has for gamers. Then they are told that Microsoft shouldn't care about any of those things.

You have conflated two questions.

1) Do gamers benefit from Microsoft being in the industry?
2) Should Microsoft, in its own best interest, stay in the gaming industry?

And when people answer the first one, you criticize them for not answering the second. Kind of unfair. And I don't think reading the OP would really help clarify that.

So, to answer them separately.

1) Yes. Competition, generally, is good for the industry. Microsoft funding Halo led to kind of an explosion in first person shooters, with GOW doing the same for third. Microsoft's XBox Live pushed Sony to better their online service, and Gamepass pushed Sony to offer a similar service which I think is a pretty good one.

2) That's really up to Microsoft. I think they see their presence in the console space as a means of getting more people into their services. For instance, get people playing on XBox Live, and even if they don't stick with consoles, they might keep on in that ecosystem. Or get them started on Gamepass and even if they don't continue on console, they will follow the service to where it goes next. For something like Gamepass, a large part of the potential market is on consoles, and I don't think that kind of product can be successful without a console presence, at least for now.

Whatever the case may be, it seems Microsoft thinks it's worth investing in. I would say that their internal teams have more data on this than you or me, so I would generally defer to them. They see a benefit here either because their current level of success is good enough to make profits in the console space, or because it leads to greater profits elsewhere.

So, that's an answer to the two separate questions you are actually asking.

Who says anyone else would automatically enter the market? No one can be in this business unless they are willing to spend a few billion dollars that's just the reality of the market. 

You assume if Microsoft leaves that it's gaurunteed someone else would enter to ensure there is direct competition for Sony. I don't think that's a given at all, your whole premise even betrays that point ... who is itching to get into the industry knowing that it was bleeding MS for a bunch of a cash too. That's not very appealing for anyone. 

you didn't read that the second part of what I wrote. I'll summarize:

Microsoft needs to prove that the Xbox is a platform of equal or greater value than Playstation/Nintendo, otherwise it will always be at a disadvantage. They will not be able to do this by being a third party, on the contrary, if they distribute games through the Playstation/Nintendo they will only contribute to strengthening the fame, reputation and mindshare of rivals in detriment of the Xbox brand.
In the "future" where Cloud Gaming is the main form of distribution, Google, Amazon (or other big tech) can partner/buy Playstation or Nintendo and surpass a "Weak Xbox". Microsoft shouldn't take that risk, they need to strengthen the Xbox brand and make it stand out, leaving the console business as a "loser" is a mistake.

So yeah.... putting PS in check, and making Xbox strong is MS's problem.

Yes. Helps keep PlayStation honest.

We just saw Google fail to enter the market. Apple failed to enter console gaming. It's not as easy as just hey we have money to make a console. Phillips & Panasonic were big Electronics companies once and they failed the console market. You also have to know the market and have the right timing. Had Sony tried in 1991 they likely flop. Sony worked with Nintendo and SEGA and learned the market plus the benefit of Nintendo and SEGA tripping over themselves in the 32-bit era. MS at least had worked with PC gaming in the 90s and worked with SEGA 90s as well. Even pre Dreamcast. MS used Dreamcast in focus test groups when developing Xbox. Nearly had a VMU and BC with DC games. The console market has proven difficult to get into and even more difficult to even have success. It's a much more exclusive market than PCs or TVs.

Not their problem.

It was never about the 1st point. This thread isn't about feelings and emotions of gamers. Its about if a Company sees the need to stay in the industry. I am speaking business terms not feelings.

The moment people on this site and elsewhere understand that it's not MS's problem to keep a company they don't trust in check, is not up to MS to bleed billions. The quicker we can move on from that narrative the quicker they can understand the real world.

No one is saying that's a guarantee, and that's the point. Who will? Why should MS? No one wants to eat the costs of billions on hardware unless you are market leader or Nintendo. 

If it's not appealing to anyone than its not appealing to MS. You answered your own concerns with your own posts.

This isn't about your feelings and trust, this is about weather MS wants to continue losing money on hardware when they can just rely on Sony and Nintendo. If Sony decide to screw up well that's on those who support Sony. Again not MS problem.

you didn't read that the second part of what I wrote. I'll summarize:

Microsoft needs to prove that the Xbox is a platform of equal or greater value than Playstation/Nintendo, otherwise it will always be at a disadvantage. They will not be able to do this by being a third party, on the contrary, if they distribute games through the Playstation/Nintendo they will only contribute to strengthening the fame, reputation and mindshare of rivals in detriment of the Xbox brand.
In the "future" where Cloud Gaming is the main form of distribution, Google, Amazon (or other big tech) can partner/buy Playstation or Nintendo and surpass a "Weak Xbox". Microsoft shouldn't take that risk, they need to strengthen the Xbox brand and make it stand out, leaving the console business as a "loser" is a mistake.

So yeah.... putting PS in check, and making Xbox strong is MS's problem.

Not their problem.

Not MS problem to keep Sony in check. 

You asked "Do WE really need Xbox?"

Why on Earth would anyone answer that question by explaining what's in Microsoft's best interest? Am I Microsoft? O_o

If basically everyone is misunderstanding you in the exact same way, I think you have to consider that maybe you did a poor job communicating.

This also falls on the individuals who disagree with that statement, if you cannot trust the company you invest in than you are investing in the wrong company.