No, they said they were not making money on it till late 2011 Their gamedivision was making profits before 2011 but you should account that PSP was doing extremely well. If we did not account the PSP/PS2 in the graphs the loss would even been higher.  With the profits of 10-11 they barely got their losses back from 09. So with 2012-2015 with PS4/Vita included I am not sure that they covered the losses of 08-06 yet. 

Um, I don't think so. The PS division before the PS4 released was making tiny profits. I doubt they've recovered the $4-5bn they lost. Even a Sony executive said that the PS3 can never become profitible. 

And Sony is a huge company. Most gamers think Sony is only playstation. The PS division is not their main division. Its their 5th largest division so its not really their main focus. The stock is up because the company is performing much better than it did for almost a decade and the outlook is good after years of massive losses. 

Nope.

The PS3 was a device designed to be sold for $399+ for the majority of its lifetime. Sony took a massive hit when they decided to try and be price competitive with Microsoft. I don't think they planned on making loses for more then a year considering its biggest initial cost (Bluray drive), plummeted down pretty quickly. If they managed to sell at their initial $599 price point for over a year and settled around at a $399 from 2008-2010 they would have been profitable I think.

Worse thing about the PS3 is that although its a brilliant system its cost certainly was not justified for the majority. Bluray never truly kicked off and all that money poured into the overpriced cell processor was pointless. The only devs that seemed to produce things the 360 simply wasn't capable off were Naughty Dog and Santa Monica.

This, basically. The PS3 lost a very large amount of money, more than what the Playstation division ever made altogether. That said, it eventually started making money and that lead to the excellent PS4.

The question itself is somewhat misleading.

The PS3 does not exist in a vacuum. No business thinks that way when you have products that are used to leverage other revenue streams.

With the PS3, part of that production debt goes to other Sony divisions, as it was equipped with a Blu-Ray drive in order to help win the format war. If you're looking at this in a holistic sense, which is what business management will do, then you have to consider that fact when you evaluate overall performance.

The same with Xbox and Microsoft. Xbox debt doesn't exist in a vacuum, either, as Microsoft was looking at it as an investment in far more areas than just production cost and game revenue.

I don't think it's profitable but i think they reduce the lose by a lot in the recent years.
Isn't the 4 billions lose news is about 5 years ago?

Platform licences for console 3rd party games were estimated between $3 and $10 (probably depending on first edition or successive bargain releases, but also on particular deals, assuming a $6 average per copy shouldn't be too optimistic) for PS3 and XB360, while for 1st party games platform owners get all the profit, if there is any, after paying devs and all the other costs (and dev royalties if the deal provides for them). PS3 already sold almost 900M copies not including digital sales, and PS3 stopped losing money on HW around the end of Q2 2010, so yes, almost surely the platform already became profitable overall.

PS Quite obviously, given its low price and profit margin in the second half of its life, it wouldn't ever have broken even with HW sales alone.