*sigh* you and Phil, are exactly wrong with the industry. The model has to work for both parties. Gaming is an expensive hobby, game development is a expensive project. Their needs to be a balence where it works for the consumers/ dev and not just one lane. As a business you start one to be profitable, period.
If they were immediately profitable with Gamepass right when they began adding their first party games to the service, then there would be no real growth as the service would be costly. What they are doing is smart, taking a temporary loss so that they can have massive gains in the future. Just look at how many subscribers they already have (at least 10 million) and as they continue to grow, they will eventually make a shit ton of money, more than enough for Gamepass to be continuously profitable but to make back any lost money in the investment phase. Once their own first party games make up the majority of games on the service (54-57 games already, counting games like Wasteland 3, Outer Worlds and We happy Few as first party even though they were published by a third party) they will need to spend less on big third party games such as RE7, Witcher 3, RDR2, GTA V, Yakuza, ESO etc even though they likely still will pay to have at least a few of them on there.
I have also been more than willing to purchase similar games upon playing games I enjoyed on Gamepass, including various metroidvanias (after having played Ori and Bloodstained) and RPGs.
Also, it's not like they force gamers to sub to their service to play their games. Even on PC, they list most of their games on Steam, a third party platform (where they only make 70% of the sales revenue) but it just allows for player choice. They are fine, and I am sure that the actual businessmen at the Xbox division know more than we do