You can start wondering by looking at the past. In the 1980s and especially the 1990s, renting games was essentially a habit that gamers got used to doing, along with buying games. Especially when games like SF2 for the SNES cost $70 on release, or Virtua Racing for the Genesis which cost $100 new. It was just more cost efficient to rent games back then, to complement the games that you actually bought to own. We know how that impacted the industry going forward, right?
You can also start wondering by looking at the recent past. Spotify has dramatically altered the music industry, and Netflix has dramatically altered the movie/tv industry. How they impacted their respective industries going forward is still happening right now. That's what Game Pass seems to be going for too. Whether it's a negative or positive impact to the gaming industry as a whole is something that only time will tell.
Right now however, some 3rd party and 1st party game developers have spoken up and said that they are pretty happy with Game Pass in a creative and financial way. That 18 million subscribers number is also making game publishers open up to testing the waters, as proven by Outriders, MLB The Show 21, and the EA Play deal. Microsoft themselves has outright said that what they are seeing is telling them that their subscription service is actually sustainable, especially after the fact their financial numbers have been more positive than negative these past months.
Sure it's wise to be skeptical about it all, as subscription models can be too good to be true at times, like Moviepass for example. However, just like Moviepass was back in it's prime, the key is to take advantage of Game Pass now while the going is good. What do you got to lose? In the end, you can still outright buy the games you want to own.
But let's start with your premise that buying is better. Game Pass (GP) users get a discount on game purchases (and this discount stacks on any other sale), GP users will be able to buy the game cheaper than Playstation gamers as well as be able to play it for free until the price of the game drops. So if there's a summer sale where the game is $60 instead of normally $70, then a GP gamer gets a discount off that $60 instead of off that $70. Essentially, an Xbox gamer gets to play the game longer than a Playstation gamer and pay less for it.
I think the "friction" argument is the true winner with GP. You no longer have to weigh pros and cons of getting a game. No more, "well, this game is great at $40 but not at $60." "this game is too short to be worth buying." "I like SHMUPs but I don't want to buy them". "I like the idea of that game but my friends won't buy it so I'll have no one to play with." "this game is $25 but only the multiplayer is good and that game is $40 but it has both a good story campaign and good MP. which to get?" ANSWER: get them both.
This is a rather odd article. There is a Game Pass alternative on PlayStation 4 and PlayStation 5, it's PlayStation Now. It hosts around 800+ games and costs around 40-45 euros a year, so technically that's cheaper and bigger than game pass. On top of that, PS4 and PS2 games can also be downloaded, and everything can be streamed (PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1). You can't compare PS Plus with Game Pass, you should compare: PSPlus vs Xbox Live Gold, and PSNow vs Game Pass. I'd love to see some pure game-related journalism but I feel that information is always biased nowadays, as a gamer I would like to know exactly what each platform is offering, and this article does not provide a neutral information to help me choosing...