Microsoft DID NOT introduce online gaming. Steam came out a year later, so it was in the works when XBL was introduced. Not to mention, there was online gaming, just not over a unified network. Also, the original xbox didn't loosen sony's grip on the console market, sony was just stupid 7th gen.They had dominated the two previous gens making the two best selling home consoles of all time, so they were incredibly arrogant. Then they thought that people would still want a ps3 at a $600 price tag. Microsoft was able to capitalize off of this with the 360, until the ps3 became not stupid. Then the ps3 dominated the rest of the gen, putting a couple million ahead of the 360. Then you add in the fact that nintendo struck major gold with the wii and revitalized their consoles a bit.
Then this gen, nintendo made a console that appealed to very few people, creating another gamecube/n64 situation. Microsoft also came in incredibly arrogant (even though they still technically lost the 7th gen). They made a console that's weaker, bulkier, and more expensive. Which they just kind of fixed by making it the same price. Microsoft seems like sony at the beginning of last gen, except they don't have a reason to be arrogant. Unless something massive happens to change the tide, sony is reclaiming its thrown this gen.

First of all, I already adressed that, literally 2 posts above.

Second of all, applying personal judgements to the actions of companies is fallacious. These are corporations not people, Sony tried something with the PS3 it didn't work allowing Xbox to claim its marketshare. Nothing is stupid about that. The allegations that these companies are prideful, stupid, greedy, or any other positive or negative judgement of character is simply childish. Sure we can personally believe what we want, but in the an objective debate these qualifications make no sense. 
If a company makes a mistake, and its competitors benefit from that, then both parties are responsible, one fucked up and the other capitalized on that fuck up. Microsoft purposely made the 360 what it was and vice versa for Sony and the PS3. The industry decided who it favored. The Nintendo Wii.

Suffice it to say, 3rd parties are of paramount important in the current market, without that Nintendo doesn't stand a chance let alone its prefereance of family friendly titles which hampers its diversity slightly. These are the same principles that PlayStation and later the Xbox were built upon so they flourish in this type of market. This is partly why both of these console are very similar, they don't need to address a different market, they just need to address the traditional one the best. This is also why the Vita, despite its featureset, is flopping, because like the Wii U, it still only has niche appeal and needs to find a larger unadressed market to claim a larger marketshare. Unfortunately, the Vita is a much worse situation then the Wii U, only mediated by the the properties of the market it addresses. All the Wii U needs to do is tap into a market similar to that of the Wii. Its a question of whether that market, is reliable, but for the Vita it doesn't even have that.

Wii gamers mostly weren't gamers. They were families who could finally enjoy gaming because the bar was essentially lowered so everyone could enjoy it. The sales of core exclusives on Nintendo took a toll outside of first party as well.

I'm not saying microsoft didn't do a good job with the 360. But watch e3 2006 and tell me that THE PEOPLE  (because I guess I need to make the distinction) at sony weren't incredibly arrogant. And the watch e3 2013 and tell me that THE PEOPLE at microsoft weren't arrogant. Sony's arrogance made their console less appealing for the first couple years. No, a company doesn't have emotions, but the peopple who run them do. Very few decisions can be made completely objectively. Sony reps said that if you don't like the price of the ps3, get a second job. That's screams arrogance. I don't know what you're trying to proce with this post though, honestly. The reason sony had trouble last gen and microsoft this gen is because of stupid choices made thinking that they were now infallible. Then based on those choices, people picked a console. It's almost like you think that I don't know that consumers make the choice. I'm very aware of this. As for you adressing what I said two posts above. Sorry, I don't have time to read through a twenty page thread. 

This must have been written by someone born in the mid 90's.

Not sure if serious...

They weren't incredibly arrogant. They simply believed the PS3 was the superior console. That's pride, not arrogance.

I agree for the most part.

Now we get new Call of Duty every year for us mature gamers.