For the record, I agree with this. As a matter of fact, I even believe that this entire day-one subscription model is not financially sustainable, especially for big AAA games. That's my current belief based on the information we have.
But just to clarify -- the discussion wasn't from Microsoft's financial POV. The argument was that "a group of people supports this acquisition and consolidation of industry because it brings games to Game Pass and gives them a cheap way to play games."
The people who don't want to buy games to play them obviously aren't interested in Microsoft's financials. And let's be honest, Microsoft's financial health isn't something that most people would be concerned about. If the line of thinking is that "this acquisition brings me cheaper games; i don't give a fuck about the rest" (which is an opinion that's fine to have), but then shouldn't adding a 1,000 game (+ABK catalog) would be even more preferable for those people over spending $70 billion for acquisitions?
I think we both know the answer to that. The answer is a resounding yes.
The real reason why people like
I
ironmang
kept avoiding this question because they know that this acquisition is about minimizing PlayStation's library of games. They're still supporting it but using the veil of "more games on Game Pass" as the reason for supporting this acquisition. But the true reason is Xbox exclusives that won't be available on PlayStation.