I get and largely agree with a lot of your points but I think you have missed my point a little. I get the ability to play first party titles on PC and eventually on cloud Services via whatever device and MS have the correct idea on cross play. GamePass is a great idea and ahead of the curve but what I’m saying is, “there needs to be clear daylight between the xsx and Xbox one not just in frame rate or resolution but in game performance as the PS5 is going to have this on day 1“Its a different priority. MS are driven by wanting as many people using their services and playing their games. Their hardware and new hardware is only one entry point into the Xbox ecosystem. MS don't care if you play Halo with an old or new xbox, on your phone on a PC or probably if they were ever allowed - using a rival console's hardware.
They simply don't make their money from selling a physical box - their money is made via cloud and services - so their gaming strategy is aligned to that. Selling a box and a local copy of a game is pretty meaningless to their business model. Its central to Sony's right now. MS have sold their cloud gaming services to Sony - it shows where MS are as a business and what they prioritise. Were the boot on the other foot Sony would have wanted to keep it from MS as a competitive advantage - but its not how MS are thinking.
They've created an environment where its almost irrelevant how much hardware they sell but far more relevant that they make good and compelling games. They've still got some ways to go there.
But buy an Xbox Series X and for a £10 a month you get 200 games many of which are AAA ready to go from the start of the generation. A huge library immediately - probably many enhanced using the BC technology. Plus you get Halo infinite and any other 1st party titles they launch with. For £10 a month.
Compare that to Sony who will offer you no doubt a big game or two for £50 or whatever each that you have to buy the hardware for.
Some will love each approach - some simply want that new box, new game. Some will simply not upgrade their Xbox because they see no need. Some will prefer a more traditional console launch.
But I honestly think when you look at it, you've got real choice and real points of difference.
If Xsx is running an NVME and loads the map almost instantly (as per Spider-Man demo from Sony) and xsx owners are sat waiting for 30-50 seconds while the old 8 year old Xbox one loads the map it will get frustrating fast. Lots of games are now big open world and sometimes open world multiplayer and you only have to look at the difference an SSD makes to perhaps the best game of the generation, the Witcher 3; now imagine that you could play via Xbox live as Geralt and Ciri in the same game and you had to wait on the other player on base console loading from that old 5400rpm hd from 2012 at what is roughly two minutes every time you died or fast traveled.
The other area of concern is people are saying that PC games scale, which they do, however none of those PC are using the old Jaguar CPU in Xbox One as the base, take Star Wars BF2, it wants an i5 6600 as the minimum CPU So they are setting the bar higher at not only the high end but also the lower end of the scale.
As said, I haven’t seen the MS guys full quote so perhaps we will get a full fat Xsx version comparable and playable with PC and then a real cutdown 720p or lower version for the Xbox one with maybe dynamic 4K for an Xbox one X version. My concern is that you can optimise so much and Xbox one has had its day and MS should look to convert these to cloud boxes. I still think the one X can offer another year or two with cutdown performance against the xsx.