The end game of capitalism is the free exchange of goods and services between consenting parties.
Those are the conditions under which capitalism argues it needs to operate, or operates best; but that is not the "end game". The "end game" is the accumulation of capital; and the reality is that holders of capital are best positioned to accumulate capital, which in turn means that, under capitalism, capital tends to be consolidated to the holders of capital (and thus power to the powers-that-be).
This isn't even a moral claim—we can debate whether those conditions and that "end game" are good or bad, right or wrong; whether it tends to net benefit society, or net impoverish—it's just the basic definitions and contours of capitalism. Parties are motivated to seek profit (in the form of capital); you believe that such motivation places parties on an even playing-field (when "free exchange" is maximally free), maximizes personal liberty (through "consent", in the form of property rights and actions), and best produces new technologies and innovations. That's fine—that's your position. But it doesn't alter the fact that the "end game" of capitalism is not "free exchange of goods and services between consenting parties", but the accumulation of capital thereby.
I disagree with your position (obviously)—in no small part because I think: (a) the "freedom" of exchange is directly indexed to the amount of capital one possesses: labor that possesses little to no capital is only "free" to exchange their labor, at whatever rate capital (and not labor) deems fit; and (b) there is "consent"
in name only for labor, vis-à-vis participation in the system: certainly I've never been apprised of an opt-out, whereby I might withdraw my "consensual" participation in the capitalist system and still be allowed to maintain any semblance of life/liberty/pursuit of happiness.
