Okay, we need to clear the air on this because it's a long-running notion with real-world decisions that are the complete opposite of it. As in, if Xbox as a brand was not important to the company, why would they spend multi-millions of dollars in purchasing/setting up at least 15 studios, many of them new, specifically for gaming content? Why are they spending half a billion dollars on a single game in Halo: Infinite (granted that definitely probably includes marketing costs and engine costs as well)?
That doesn't sound like a company which has almost no regard for a gaming division to me. Yes compared to their other divisions like Windows, Office and server markets the Xbox side is not worth as much, but that is all relative. If the division were not worth it t them, they would not have pursued development into XSX and (allegedly) Lockhart to the level they have, either. Simply building a mid/top-range gaming PC in a box as a next-gen Steam machine at an affordable price would've been enough, no need to custom design an APU with AMD or tailor a specific implementation of their OS for just a gaming device if that were the case.
As for their historical tendencies for hardware subsidizing, well we know that wasn't the case with 360 as they sold it for at least a $125 loss (on the Premium model). The XBO sold at-cost, and we don't know what their intentions with the XSX are in that regard. However, Seeing as how the 360 and XBO had similar BOMs ($525, $471), and that XSX is already said to have a BOM of around $460 (could be a bit higher or a bit lower), and that we know for sure XBO was the first MS console sold at-cost at launch, I think it's fair to say the OG Xbox may've had a BOM notably north of its $299 MSRP. The fact the DVD remote had to be purchased separately at $30 to enable DVD playback is somewhat indicative of this (plus MS trying to pinch pennies on costs).
We all know that MS's pricing and marketing strategy with the XBO at launch was not what it needed to be, it was not positioned as a gaming-orientated device and the MSRP (as well as the design) reflected that. We also know MS is steering away from that this time around, so they are more likely to price XSX with at least a small loss per system sold. General BOM estimates seem to have it between $460 to $480 or so, going by sources like the Bloomberg article. Keeping that in mind and the reality that they have willingly taken subsidized hardware losses on the 360 and very likely OG Xbox as well, the probability they price XSX at least as low as $449 is honestly pretty favorable right now, even with Lockhart possibly being a thing.
It's much less likely they will price it at $399 because there is the chance of Lockhart happening, plus additional software and services-based means of subsidization they can use to supplement instead like Gamepass, but there's two historical precedents of them willing to take a noticeable loss on each system sold, versus one where they didn't (that one currently being the exception, not the rule). Since I don't think the OG Xbox had a BOM in excess of $100 over the MSRP, if the XSX follows either previous system's MSRP strategy it'd likely be OG Xbox's just...without needing you to spring $30 for a feature-accessing remote this time
Who said they're working towards a console-free future? They are probably working towards a future where console development costs are not as pricey as they are today and have traditionally been, which would mean some sort of tech medium has to be eventually established, but the idea of a console as a device to play the games on, regardless if it's running locally or streaming? Provided production costs could get low enough and it could be sold at even a slight profit, why would MS stop manufacturing such said console with their branding on it if it could mean more revenue and profit?
It might go against the concept of a console as we currently know them but consoles today have already changed drastically from what we knew them back with PS2, Gamecube etc. which were quite different from consoles like SNES, MegaDrive etc. Especially the current consoles, which have more in common with PC architectures than any have before them. In the mass market the definition of a console is always changing, whether we like it or not. That's just bound to happen as technology continues evolving and improving.
So your idea hinges on the notion that consoles as we know them won't change as time goes on, and that the same level of production costs associated with them today doesn't change in result to shifting evolution in the tech market. But we know both of those things are bound to adapt and change over time, so 10 years..maybe even 5 years from now (slim chance but still), we can have consoles that are affordable enough to produce that it'd make bad business sense for a company like MS (or Sony) to not continue making and selling them at mass making small profits on each unit in addition to the subscriptions and services, digital software sales etc. stacking on top of that.
The more vertical integration of your ecosystem you have the better, no matter what. Just look at companies like Nintendo for proof of that; controlling both the software and hardware side of things helps with fanbase retention and coalescing the fanbase to a common platform. Even if they were to at some point start providing their games on other devices, there would be brand identity to their hardware driving the purchase.
It's like, hey I can watch a Sony Pictures film or listen to a Sony Music album on any blu-ray player or MP3 device, but they still manufacture their own branded blu-ray players and MP3 Walkmans for a reason. There's still a suitable market for their branded devices of the sort, in
spite of the software itself usable with other brand devices.
