Critique of the original article by subject:
New Consoles - Sony likely has an actual money invested advantage over Microsoft due to far greater success in the current generation, when most people really started making the move to digital. Those libraries are worth a lot to the average consumer. Then consider that its a pretty easy marketing move for Sony to equate PSNow with GamePass, or even as GamePass + Streaming if MS doesn't have XCloud ready day one for some reason. The pitch of "all our new games will be on Game Pass day one" is nice in theory, but when the actual lineups are out people will see more noteworthy names on Sony's list simply because they publish more noteworthy games.
Cloud Streaming - buddy brings this up as a big deal and yet fails to mention that Sony has been streaming games for basically the entire generation, already had it working (albeit poorly) on PS3 and Vita, and is already on both PC and PS4 in larger numbers than any other streaming service.
Meanwhile if we're going to get into old games Sony also has a far larger library of old games to build a "Netflix of Games" with, dating back to their PSOne days and even further as they acquired some relatively successful smaller developers in that era, inheriting their libraries.
The argument here is "MS is best positioned because of their position in the games industry coupled with server infrastructure" yet this ignores that Sony can, and in fact likely will, just pay for that server infrastructure. If game streaming is suddenly going to be the thing Sony, not MS, is the one in the drivers seat as they're already doing it, make more compelling content for it, own more historical content to feed into it, and can just pay a partner to push the data. If not MS I'm sure Amazon can make something work, or Google will bail on Stadia in exchange for a partnership approach.
Backwards Compatibility - Pointless. Sony has the data and has spoken to it in the past. A very, very small segment of people return to previous generation games once the new one is in full swing. MS has leaned in hard on BC, sure, but I'd have a hard time buying any argument claiming they have some aberant engagement rate and that it isn't primarily just a gap filler while their first party library is exceptionally weak. Even with that said, the likely edge for MS here would have been this past generation, not the next, as the PS3 > PS4 transition was Sony's hurdle. the PS5 will almost certainly be able to run PS4 games on hardware without emulation while also likely being powerful enough to close out emulation on PS2 and PS3. MS put a lot of work in for the XBox and X360 libraries on the One this gen, sure, but Sony has been on that since the PS2 and based on hacks/leaks pretty clearly has a high success rate wrapper for PS2 games on both PS3 and PS4 and likely some PS3 tools stemming from their streaming service that are likely evolving into actual PS3 emulation as we speak.
Cross Play/Cross Save - A feature Sony introduced on the PS3/PSP, continued onto the PS4/Vita, and has largely stopped servicing because not enough people used it. Oh, and one where MS' own efforts are pretty meh until just recently, and where the uptake outside of first party games is so low as to border on inconsequential. How does this drive a difference for the average consumer? Not to mention that if it turns into a meaningful selling point somehow without massively changing execution (like Stadia's "pickup and play from stream location" feature) there is nothing here Sony, Nintendo, etc. couldn't include in a firmware edit and patches. Larian put cross save/cross play in a fucking Switch port of a PC RPG, this does not require the technical might of MS. It requires 3rd parties joining in. Seeings how MS can't even get 1:1 releases on Xbox Game Pass v. PC Game Pass I don't think cross play is coming to every 3rd party game next gen just because MS likes talking about it.
In conclusion: Game Pass is a great service, but that is true largely because MS is putting a substantial cash subsidy behind it and expecting retention of subs to make them whole in the long term. Sony could pull off the same shift with PSNow pretty easily.
MS' advantage is having an, as of now, unique position as being a part of the industry while also being an order of magnitude larger than Sony and Nintendo. They have other markets to compete in though to remain the juggernaut they are, so its not like all their discretionary capital is getting poured into video games. They also have similarly sized companies, namely Google but also long rumored Amazon and Apple, lurking.
At the end of the day they need to turn some of this wealth of resources into a high value tier of products - i.e. enough noteworthy games to compete with Sony and Nintendo. Not a small task by any means even with unlimited resources.
MS has had great hardware every single generation.
The 360 had the single largest known manufacturing defect rate of any major console by a wide margin.
The Xbox One was both substantially weaker and cost more than the PS4.
MS had great hardware when it was against PS2 and GC and could throw a high end Nvidia card in a box and write off the loss as buying into the market, when they could effectively do the same with X1X to buy hardware supremacy again, and are likely doing the same with XsX.
MS has only had great hardware when they write off a loss to make it happen. Even then it doesn't always work (like with the 360 where eating the extra ram bump/etc. to meet the suggestions of devs paid off, but the manufacturing process was basically faulty for an entire year or better).
Like Forza Horizon 4, Gears 5 and Ori next month?
Yeah, ok.
No, like games that actually garner major mainstream attention. Not a niche pseudo-arcade racer, a still enjoyable yet stale third person shooter, and an indie metroidvania.
This is like if someone tried claiming that MLB: The Show, Uncharted: Lost Legacy, and Nex Machina were all Sony needed to headline their first party studios.