To be fair to Sony, they had a really rough start with the PS3. Really, really rough. It took years for the PS3 to properly gain momentum, and the first year was burned on the failure launch model. Then they had to complete R&D on the Slim model to figure out where costs could be cut and design improvements that could be made leading to what was basically the relaunch with the Slim, which meant essentially doing manufacturing on par with what would be expected for a launch day event once more. Then they weren't content with the sales momentum of the PS3 after several years passed and did all the work to turn out the Super Slim, which was a less momentous occasion but must have still cost a fair bit of cash.
I'm not surprised Microsoft lost money on the 360 either. They may not have had the launch issues the PS3 had, but the system cost them a lot in RRoD repairs, system replacements, as well as legal costs, then finally further R&D to release a model that looked nothing like their RRoD machine (despite the fact that later model phats had already gotten past the old hardware issues). Microsoft had a bumpy road in an entirely different way, but it was a bumpy road none the less. What was probably worse for them was the fact that the original Xbox was basically a flop, so their game console division couldn't look back at previous profits from the past generation and pat themselves on the back and say they'd be okay.
Granted, I'm sure both made up at least some of the cost in software sales, but I doubt either Sony or Microsoft were necessarily impressed with the end financial performance of their consoles. Even if software sales helped, software sales should ultimately not be what covers a console's lacking sales performance on the hardware level.
