Sony with software last? Yeaaaah, no.
Software has been the very key for Sony in beating Microsoft, especially this generation. And that didn't just come out of nowhere, it has been a long and arduous project that is now starting to bear fruit. In fact, software was very largely a factor in breaking Sony into the console business to begin with. They went with CD and snagged a few killer titles that would have gone to Nintendo traditionally, and that's how the ball started rolling. Sony has been pushing great gaming libraries every gen and that is how they have built their brand. You know you will get the games, whether they are popular multiplats or great exclusives, they will come and they will be good.
You are right in that Sony has always been a hardware company, that's what they originally were and still make all kinds of hw in different markets. But they went through a major crisis on that front, which made them see the value of their gaming brand and shift their focus accordingly. They saw what they have to do on the software side and they nailed it.
I don't really see why an arbitrary 10 million sales figure would be some kind of a measure for how important software is to a company. A game only needs to sell enough to be decently profitable, and when you churn out enough games that are well received, you will begin to see customer trust and brand value. When you have all of the multiplats on the roster, your own games don't need to carry the whole load.
Like Holly said, Sony is pretty well balanced as a whole. I'd say they are pretty much equally hw/sw, with services dragging behind a little.

Not bad. I pretty much agree with all of that in a very general regard.

However, I do think we are looking at a move toward a more holistic philosophy by Sony. They want Playstation to be a well-rounded platform with good support at all points. Though, yes, as of right now, hardware is the central pillar, they do seem to be looking at life beyond that.

Nintendo might also be looking at a similar path, at least in terms of services, which they neglected badly during the last regime. The fact that they're trying to catch up is a good sign.

On the other hand, Microsoft is working toward something different than the others. They want Xbox to be more akin to Steam than Playstation or Nintendo. The services part is clearly far more important to them than hardware or software, neither of which they really want to be in the business of selling. With Xbox, hardware and software are both a means to an end.

Exclusives is not the point. Read what I've said several times now, I'm tired of explaining it.

If people want to argue the "X Last" part of it, I can see that, but you have to admit that with the "X First" part, I'm right about each company's brand philosophy.

Again, not the point. It doesn't matter whose hardware is best, it matters why they did with their hardware what they did, and what it means to the brand. With Nintendo, hardware follows software. Back in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th generations, diminishing returns had not even begun to set in, each generation felt leaps and bounds beyond the last. This meant that there was a strong incentive from a software perspective for Nintendo to invest in better hardware. This isn't about who won, but what their philosophy was in trying to win.

Regarding the part I bolded/underlined/italicized in the first post, this is a really good point. I take back what I said, and wholly endorse your strikethroughs and bolded parts in your response to my post. Your points on how Sony designs their hardware vs how Nintendo does really drives my point home.

Nintendo was actually notorious during their first few gens for being a terrible company for 3rd parties to work with and difficult to publish on, they were so controlling because they felt like the kings of the industry and liked having control over the software on their system. 5th gen was the first time they really felt the burn of their own hubris, thanks to Sony's strong competition. Gamecube's failure taught them a lot, and they cut out some of their controlling nature around software. But yeah, back before indies were a thing, they were pretty terrible to work with, and you're probably right that this was due to them seeing everyone else as competitors. But it's not like they were trying to keep good games off of their system (come on, the SNES had plenty of great 3rd party games, including timeless classics like Chrono Trigger), they were just super controlling over them, because they wanted absolute control over Nintendo's software brand. Even now, it's not like they let up all that much, mostly just on indies. Like you said, they're not going to let third party publishers have any say in the hardware. Even basic shit like making a console compatible with Unreal Engine 4 only came once they decided they liked UE4 enough to make Yoshi on it, one of their own games.

Sony should be a balanced software/hardware first and services last.

I mostly agree with what you are saying, but I would say the SNES beat the Genesis "in spite of" superior hardware rather than "because of" superior hardware. 

In Japan, Nintendo had a huge software advantage over Sega, which is why they won Japan in spite of having more expensive hardware.  In the US, the Genesis had EA sports, which meant the SNES only had a minor software advantage over the Genesis.  The Genesis had a price advantage (being the weaker console), and so it and the SNES sold fairly close to one another because one had a slight software advantage and the other had a slight price advantage.  By the end of generation 4 both consoles became cheap enough that price became less of a factor, and it was at this point the SNES had better legs due to their software advantage.  So SNES won over the long haul, because Nintendo stayed competitive through software and eventually could make their console cheap enough, but the more expensive hardware put them at a disadvantage for much of generation 4.

Pretty compelling points, which I mostly agree with. My personally sum of the big three boils down to this though...

Nintendo has the best first-party titles in the industry. In terms of their impact, their longevity over more than 35 years, their evergreen nature, I could go on. Mario. Zelda, Pokemon, Donkey Kong, Super Smash Bros., Kirby, Animal Crossing, Metroid, and others. Nintendo may indeed pull out of hardware at some point, but I think they'll make software until somehow their company could go under.

Sony is the best Jack-of-All-Trades. Capable hardware, multimedia, some killer first-party titles, a controller that's been more consistent for over 20 years than any of the other big three (though the DualShock 4 has shook things up somewhat with the touchpad, share, etc.).

Microsoft is the best at online and services in general. They invented a comprehensive online network, consistently support backwards compatibility (I get that the Xbox One wasn't BC at launch, but it's more than made up for it), Game Pass, Achievements (which Sony and Steam adopted), and the Xbox One S and X are multimedia juggernauts.

So...
Nintendo - Best First-Party Software
Sony - Best Jack-of-All-Trades
Microsoft - Best Online

Note that my assesment of Sony as the best all-arounder doesn't mean they have the best consoles every gen. It just means they do a terrific job with balancing first-party, third-party exclusives and multiplats, hardware capabilities, online, services, and the like.

I can agree with most things here. I would disagree with the idea of Sony being hardware first/software last.

I think they took that approach the last generation and it killed them. This generation, they've been more focused on delivering a balance of all these things (hardware/software/services) which is why they are at the top of their game.

While Nintendo constantly focuses on innovations in both hardware and games and delivers unrivaled quality on a consistent basis, we can say the best that Sony has made still rivals them. Think Bloodborne, TLOU, Shadow of the Colossus remake, Spider-Man. And Sony is the only one focusing on VR adoption so innovation isn't too bad (although I think Sony plays it safer than the other big 2). They've also been receptive to dev's needs, indie and 2nd/3rd party alike so whatever they get for exclusives tends to be great stuff.

In terms of services, Microsoft is obviously king, because it's ecosystem inherently is about supporting Live and Steam to a certain extent (because PC gaming is basically Microsoft Windows gaming...just look at how little impact Apple or even Steam with their own Linux box have had on Windows gaming market). So Live mimicking what is going on with PC is pretty much the same philosophy the company has had since the OG Xbox, albeit more streamlined and less fleshed out.

But with PS4, we've seen plenty of services come into existence or become better to the point they can rival Xbox's. PSN is stable and safer than ever and offers plenty of great games for free like Live. It's gotten Twitch and social media functionality out of the box too. Sony's come far in this space.

So yeah, I think you make a lot of good points, but I don't think the hardware first/software last philosophy is the one Sony has taken. I think it's been all about balancing those two and the services, which is why Sony wins a 3rd out of 4 generations they've been in (and they did a killer comeback when they focused on the gamer's needs at the end of the PS3 life cycle).

But overall, I don't think any one company exceeds so much in any category this gen. A lot of great quality all around which is why the numbers aren't so skewed. Switch is outselling both on a monthly basis, but PS4 has the lion's share and isn't going anywhere soon. And Xbox is constantly in the background doing its thing and setting themselves up to support an ecosystem that is bigger than what Sony and Nintendo have in terms of gaming, even if it's mostly non-console gaming.