I expect this to be true. Sony is more willing to take a loss on HW, while I think MS is preparing for their xCloud/Gamer Pass future, so won't be quite as willing to take big losses on HW. The X kinda proved that. MS didn't want to take any loss, so priced it $100 more than the competition, even though it could have been their opportunity to mount a comeback.
What a completely bizarre post.
1. XBox1 sold at $100 higher than PS4 because of the Kinect2 (which easily had a $200 product cost. Ask any electronics engineer that has seen the inside of a Kinect2). So the loss out of the gate was considerably higher for Microsoft per console sold than for Sony.
2. During the past 2-3 years, XBox1 was easily available all over Europe in the $229 to $249 range (after Kinect2 was written off, obviously). PS4 always was at least $70 to $100 more expensive, often selling at $399 for periods. And from a mass manufacturing standpoint, PS4 has been considerably cheaper to manufacture. Again, the loss has been considerably higher for Microsoft per console sold than for Sony.
3. X1X might actually be sold at a small profit at its list price of $499. Here the design changes make mass manufacturing considerably cheaper than on XBox1. (However, given the sales numbers, is the X1X really a mass product?)
To sum up, I easily estimate that, on hardware alone, every XBox1 has been sold at a loss over its entire lifespan.
I'd say your post is the bizarre one. You speak of the beginning of this gen as if it has any bearing on MS's position, now. As if nothing has changed since then. As if MS doesn't have a new CEO. As if Gates himself didn't say he was fine with spinning off Xbox from MS. At the beginning of this gen MS was hot off the highly successful 360. Of course, they were going to try and win the coming gen, including selling at a decent loss, when they thought they had a shot to win. Unfortunately for them, they banked on cable and Kinect being a big enough draw to mask their weaker HW, as well as their vision of always online gaming.
Yes, the XBO S has been cheaper for the past couple of years, but I highly doubt they, or Sony when they sold the PS4 for $199 during BF, are losing any money off of HW. At worst, they are breaking even at those prices. Sure, MS may not be making much of a profit off of HW, but that doesn't mean they are losing any, either.
There is no way the X is being sold at a loss. I highly doubt they are selling at break even, either. And this is exactly my point. The X could have been the Xbox's big comeback, in terms of HW. They could have pulled off what Sony did with the PS3 Slim, which changed their fortunes. Sell at a loss so that you are within range of your competition and continue to spend money on pumping out many high quality games. Instead, MS sold the X at break even, at worst, at launch and their 1st party content slowly dried up.
Which brings us to today. It seems pretty obvious that MS is starting to focus, yet again, on their always online vision of gaming. Only this time they are implementing it through streaming and digital goods, not so much draconian DRM. This is the new MS, with a new vision for Xbox. The one that oversaw the release of the X. The one heavily pushing the xCloud and Gaming Pass, even stating that is the exact reason they bought the new studios, more content for those services, not more exclusives for Xbox HW. I highly doubt they are going to be heavily subsidizing any HW moving forward.