Way back "in the day" there were a lot of discussions on how Nintendo could produce the Gamecube and sell it for $200 and break even while Microsoft sold the XBox for $300 and were rumored to lose over $100 per console when both consoles were so similar in processing power. The answer that made the most sense was that there were vast differences in licencing agreements ...
Nintendo choose a small tech company (ArtX) to produce their GPU potentially because the R&D costs were small and Nintendo would end up owning the design, whereas Microsoft choose nVidia even though it was well known that nVidia wouldn't sell technology they would only licence it. Nintendo choose IBM to produce their CPU based off of a core that IBM was pushing on smaller companies with affordable licencing fees, whereas Microsoft choose Intel because it would be familiar to PC developers.
Every component of the Gamecube (even the top loading drive) was choosen because it was cost effective whereas there seemed to be no consideration for the costs associated to the XBox. Even if Microsoft kept the XBox alive today I'm not sure they would be able to break even if they charged less than $150 ... I don't think that it is a particularly good idea to be losing money on 2 consoles at the same time.
