Have you ever heard of something called "burden of proof"? It means that the one making a claim (in this case you) has to provide proof for his claim, not that the ones that question your claim should have to look for the evidence.

Also, sure, last gen, I'm willing to bet that MS made more money per user than Sony (without even taking into account how much Sony lost per PS3 sold), for one simple reason; you needed Gold to play online. This gen, you also need PS+ to play online, so money per current gen user should be roughly equal.

Same people that were parroting shareholders to tear down Xbox are the same ones saying(really really really wanting)MS to shut Xbox down. Never wanted them to be successful and still don't. Same sad desperate people. I've no idea why it is the way it is.
I don't care about Sony at all and haven't wrote anything negative about them last or this gen. Why would I? I don't care what they're doing on that side of the fence.

I would see no problem, and maybe some benefits if for next gen or so MS and Ninty decides not to release a new console, making PlayStation a standard that all 3 agrees with, if Sony also allow third parties to produce and if they want to include the box the art for any specific company.

Uh, I can name a few problems just off the top of my head.

1. Inferior online infrastructure.
2. One marketplace Sony controls.
3. No competition = no reason to innovate/remain consumer minded.

We've already seen what Sony does when they are unchallenged. The result was the PS3. And we've seen what MS would do if they were unchallenged. The original Xbone plans. Hell, you can see what Nintendo tried when they thought they had the market with WiiU. None of these three were good for consumers until competition forced them to make changes. If there's only one console, there's no reason for these changes to happen. DRM, weak hardware, less consumer friendly prices (especially digital), among other things, I think could easily become a reality with a one console market.

Where as if Microsoft and Sony continue on what appear to be their current plans of making Xbox and Playstation services rather than hardware, the advantages are enormous. Possibilities for much better hardware, upgrades, loads more peripheral support, prices down on virtually everything, open platforms, etc. I mean, imagine one machine where you could load up Steam and play some DOTA 2. After that, load up the Xbox app and play some Forza. While playing Forza you get a popup and it's an invite to play some Uncharted 4. Sounds pretty awesome to me. And these are all marketplaces with their own ecosystems and all would compete with one another. This is where gaming is heading imho and it's going to be awesome.

This would be beyond terrible 

I said one HW standard, not monopoly of Marketplace or even servers... and how is it no competition if the 3 agree on the standard?

Yeeeehhhh the so horrible PS3, they though they were so undefeatable that they decided to lose 200 per HW just so they could abuse the customers.

You said Playstation as standard... Playstation is more than hardware. Good luck having Sony release a standard console and allowing Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo to all design their own marketplaces for the console that you could swap between. But why would Sony ever agree to allowing Microsoft and Nintendo to put their services on their own console? They are the market leader. All you could possibly see is Microsoft and Nintendo end up third party putting their games ON Sony's service. And no thanks to that.

As a consumer why do I care what Sony is losing per unit sold? All I care about is what they are charging me, and what I get for that price. Thankfully they fixed that.

I can't really blame them. I'm sure retailers aren't buying many of their consoles and they rather hide how bad they are selling. 

because they would have royalties from the sales made on the system as a role?

Oww so sony is a bad company when dominating because they charged you too much for what you wanted to pay, no matter it was underpriced... ok understand. Guess Ferrari if was taking a loss would also be very bad for its customer because there are people that think it's still too high. You compare MS anti-customer decisions to Sony pricy console, yeah those are really up on the same ballpark, and PS2 dominating a lot was surely very bad for customers.

Or, as market leader, they could just tell the other guys to use Sony's service or not at all? And then Sony could just have the whole digital market to themselves, giving them more revenue than "royalties" from digital sales? I mean... do you really think Sony declined EA Access because it "wasn't a good value for our consumers"? LOL. Please tell me no. They said no because it would interfere with their own digital services. Yet they're going to just allow Microsoft and Nintendo to put theirs in? Of course, that's not even getting into the technical issues with such an endeavor. Your idea is just not based in reality.

I'm having a hard time believe you're this torn up because I said Sony made mistakes with the launch PS3. I mean.. it's widely accepted that they were too confident coming off PS2 and launched the PS3 too high a price. Your excuses about money lost is irrelevant. You know what could have helped with the money lost? Not using the PS3 as a trojan horse to win the HD format war. Also all of the incredibly cocky PR leading up to the launch. Sony messed up the PS3 launch. And this is why the PS4 is such a step in the opposite direction. I'm not going to waste any more time talking about how many Sony didn't mess up the launch PS3 LOL.