Yes, we do.

Without Xbox controller, no dualshock and dualsense redesigns from Dualshock 3. Without Xbox Game Pass, no PS Extra (I don't count PS Premium, as it is mostly PS Now, which existed before). Nor even Nintendo Switch online retro games catalog.

During the late 80s/early 90s, it was Nintendo vs Sega and Atari (in the US), NEC (in Japan) trying to compete. During the 2000s, it was Sony vs Nintendo with Sega and then Microsoft trying to compete.

Competition is good for the market. And the current state of the market is very competitive.

Why do Sony keep making Xperia phones even if the whole market is basically around iPhones, Samsung phones and some chinese brands ? Because they want to have a presence in the market. And I'm glad they do, I always had Sony Ericsson phones (Sony only since 2011), their design philosophy is what I like about their phones. But they sell like 3 per quarter. And everybody gets inspired by Sony phones (waterproof phones, slow motion camera, fingerprint reader on the lock button, 21:9 aspect ration - mostly copied as 20:9 aspect ratio currently)

No, people just need to read the thread and stop replying on something that was answered in the original post.

My post literally says, and I quote "So the question is why does MS hang around in the hardware market? Is it to keep Sony in check? Thats not their responsibility" and I get 20 posts of people saying Xbox needs to keep Sony in check. The anwser to the replies was in the original post. 

So tell me again how many people have read my post?

Is Xbox needed? No, console gaming existed before Xbox and can do fine without Xbox if for whatever reason MS decided to leave. Hard to say if Sony and/or Nintendo would allow GamePass onto their platforms. I could see Nintendo being more open to the idea simply due to them not needing 3rd party games to be successful, Sony on the other hand would probably be more against the idea.

Regardless, I don't think MS is planning to leave console gaming anytime soon. I'm not sure why they would buy all these studios just to give up a handful of years later. We'll see another Xbox console after the Series X/S (beyond that, who could say).

I'll just add on to this post. People point out that Xbox is needed for competition and/or to keep Sony in check but Xbox isn't competitive with PlayStation in most markets. Hence why Sony has been able to get away with increasing the price of its console and games in general. People also point to North America which yes, MS is competitive in that region with PlayStation but unless suddenly North America is all that matters; Xbox's competitiveness is a minimal reason for it to stick around and has largely had no impact in stopping Sony from raising the prices on consumers. 

Essentially, Xbox being competition to PlayStation isn't a valid reason in my mind for Xbox to be needed. 

Hear me out, some won't like what I have to say but the reality is a hard lesson of life.

Now that the ABK deal has been blocked (For now) this puts massive pressure on MS and keeping Xbox Hardware relevant. Unlike Nintendo who sells hardware at a profit and obviously deliver lesser hardware overall to produce, and Sony can rely on CoD money pumping billions into PS without eating into their own revenue streams. MS have to continually eat the costs of its RnD, Hardware selling at a loss and also selling a lot less than the competition, losing them billions just to stay in it. Hardware is down 30% and Services is up by 10%. Even though the Series X/S is the fastest selling Xbox in history, its simply not enough for a company like MS.

Xbox hardware has always been a controversial product. Every Gen they come out and cannot make a big enough dent within the industry to maintain momentum. So the question is why does MS hang around in the hardware market? Is it to keep Sony in check? Thats not their responsibility and shouldn't have to bleed billions creating console hardware just to balance the industry out. 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. 

Alot of you will be saying "But but but if Xbox make good games they will sell more consoles" Wrong. Good 1st party games won't change the fate of Xbox. OG Xbox, 360, and the beginning of the X1 had plenty of 1st party outings and exclusives and it still hadn't gotten them close to market leader. What sells PS and XB is the plethora of 3rd party support, and that market has been taken by Sony long ago. Another example is the PS3, which had plenty of Sony's own 1st party support but the PS3 lost Sony $6billion while the 360 lost MS $4billion. 1st party outings did not change this outcome. Funny enough the X1 didn't lose the amount of money the 360 did and the X1 sold a lot less and with games releasing on PC regularly.

Sega lasted 4 generations before they dropped out, and this is Xboxes 4th generation and its hard to see them continuing the hardware front next gen. Due to the lack of 3rd party support and the ABK deal being blocked, MS will most likely finish this gen off and move to what Google tried to start with Stadia. The next Xbox won't be hardware like before but a service available on multiple devices saving billions on hardware and putting the Xbox eco-system on platforms to obtain their goal of subs.

This will make the PS fans happy as they don't have to worry about Xbox and will give Sony full control of the high end performance market, while most likely Xbox will be one of the larger publishers in the industry much like Sega today. 

The reality is the industry isn't big enough for 3 platform holders and it never works out well for the 3rd. History has proven that, dating back even before the NES and Sega years. This is why the Mobile market and PC market only have two main choices, ISO and Android to MAC and Windows. Duopolys seem to work more consistently.

I believe Xbox pulling out of the Hardware scene is great for everyone. Xbox will make more revenue with less cost, Sony can do what they want, and everyone will be able to play MS games across a much wider range of devices. In my opinion there won't be another traditional Xbox console after this gen with the exception of a hybrid system. If you are a collector, id start collecting.

Future may seem grim at first, but this is actually a win for everyone. More people playing video games is a better industry.

Or YOU need to read the forum rules: https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=247191#content

4. THREAD CREATION - Thread titles and content must be descriptive and on topic.

If your thread title ain't on topic with the thread's content, it is your fault!
Not the fault of the people who answer the thread title.

A) Thread Titles:

1. Need to accurately describe the subject content
2. Should not use deceptive hooks to lure people in
3. Should not be used to pose simple questions

Doesn't look like your line of thinking regarding the matter is working very well, so looks like wishful thinking instead of striving for good results, but whatever floats your boat. Anyway, no more offtopic from me.

That is not an answer to the replies. It's a response to an entirely different question. Whether or not Microsoft has a responsibility to make Xboxes has nothing to do with whether or not we need them to. And, again, since that is the question you asked in the title, that's what people should and did think you expected them to answer. 

Nothing in the rest of the post would lead them to believe otherwise. In the OP it mentions what is in Sony's best interests, the best interests of gamers, and what's best for the industry. It ends by addressing what's good for "everyone". So if people read the whole post, and not just the sentence you pulled out, they would naturally think "we" encompassed all of those parties, and that the comment about Microsoft's responsibility was at most facet of the issue. If your entire point was to say that MS doesn't have a responsibility to make consoles, then that's just absolutely pointless. I don't believe anyone except Uncle Ben would argue otherwise. 

I meant all this as constructive, although admittedly snarky, feedback. You can choose to be petulant about it and insist that everyone else is the problem. Or, as I recommended, you can at least consider the fact that you did not communicate effectively. You can simply say "Hey guys. What I was really hoping to discuss was..." 

Your choice, but if there was something you felt was worthy of discussion, I'd go with that second option.

Why do you think Sony is making CoD money and MS is making no money?

They both make lots of money off third party revenue. MS makes money off CoD, Fortnite, even Destiny, even if it's not as much as Sony is making.  

The 360 did fine. The Xbox Series S|X are great consoles even if they don't sell as much as the PS5 does.

And no, you shouldn't trust any company. The interest of a company is to a great extent at odds of the interest of the consumer. Companies exist to make money. 

Microsoft makes more money on services and transactions on their network than they would just selling games on other platforms.