At the end of the day, the customers decide.
Microsoft tried to force their garbage DRM onto the world with the Xbone. It wasn't just about preventing piracy, it was about killing used game sales, game trading, game lending - all entirely valid, legally protected uses of ones owned games. Microsoft wanted control. Its approach took so much, and gave so little. And it was wholesale rejected, causing untold damage to Xbox that can be seen to this day. Consumers didn't want it, so it died. The same thing applies to subscription services.
Focusing on Game Pass as the example, it takes very little - just a monthly subscription and internet access - and yet it offers a lot. As long as the value proposition remains, it'll continue to be the best deal in gaming. However, if it shifts, and the value proposition disappears, then people will stop subscribing. The onus is on Microsoft to continue to pack their subscription with titles worth subscribing for. Their recent investments - Zenimax Media and Activision Blizzard - suggest they have a decent understanding of this, and are making sure they have enough first party big hitters to keep the service attractive year-round. In this form, the service works for me.
For me, as long as I have the ability to purchase games I like, I'm a big fan of Game Pass. I've discovered several games that I really enjoyed, and I bought them because I don't want to lose them. If Microsoft starts making titles exclusive to Game Pass, with no option to buy the title outright, then I'm done with the service. That models works for Microsoft, but it doesn't work for me. That's the line for me. But, for others who say "no subscription service ever", that's a fair approach too. In the end, the customers decide.