Microsoft's game division is still far in the red overall.  They didn't start posting profits till the 3rd year the 360 was on the market.  Like I said, we will see if Sony can post profits with it's 3rd year on the market. (I'm guessing they can).   Also the Microsoft numbers hide the costs of the RROD issue (IMHO), which is an ongoing cost that is going to hurt their bottom line.

The 360 only has a stronger umbrella over their head but it's still in the middle of a downpour.    As it boils down to the systems?  The 360 is in a worse position (Unless  Sony takes a third straight year of loss).

MS with the 360 is in a far better position than Sony with the PS3.  The 360 is just now entering its most profitable period.  The hardware is profitable, software sales are of course profitable and the 360 is a software selling beast, and the 360 also has the benefit of selling 10,000,000+ Xbox Live Gold subscriptions per year (This is like Halo 3 releasing every year). It will be 3+ years before the nextbox shows up and the 360 will be very profitable each year.

The PS3 has yet to reach profitability and the poor performance of the PS3 will force Sony to release the PS4 right around the same time as the nextbox and whatever Nintendo releases.  This cuts short the core years of profitability for the PS3.

Look at is this way. 

2009 PS3 will probably do break even business (depending on when the price reduction happens, the earlier the cut the higher the loss).
2010 PS3 is modestly profitable (See 360 last year)
2011 PS3 is profitable
2012 PS3 is profitable, but PS4 will probably release

@Rpruett

They have nowhere near similar attach rates. The PS3 and the Wii have similar, but the 360's is like 2-3 more games per console sold than both of them.  And before you try to counter this point, I will make these following statements:
-This is considering the same time frames (first 23 months for each console).
-If you say many 360's sold due to RRoD replacements, then the attach ratio must actually be higher since those new consoles did not require repurchase of games.

We already told you that the RRoD is paid off.

The cost of the hardware falls at the same rate given Moore's Law. Sure the physical dollar amount may be less on the 360 side, but that's just because it is cheaper. The hardware costs are still falling at the same rate, which means the PS3 will never be able to reach near the low costs of the 360's hardware (it was more expensive to begin with, and was a year later so Moore's law hasn't had as much time to affect it).

1. The attach ratio is skewed by being released a full year ahead of time and when you factor this in they are actually pretty comparable (Still better, but comparable and certainly not some night and day difference compared to other consoles).

2. Is the RROD paid off in those figures?  Are you 100% positive?  Are you sure those figures have assigned the RROD?  I'm not sure,  but I highly doubt you are either.  You are just guessing.

3. That's entirely the point.  The physical dollar amount being less on the 360s (Which is really the only thing that matters as it pertains to cost?).  The PS3 doesn't need to reach as low as the costs of 360's hardware. At some point, both will be so low it's negligible in difference.

4. Again you aren't counting Sony's first party studios which most certainly make a profit.  (Something Microsoft doesn't really have).  Which adds profit to their bottom line.

5. The numbers speak for themselves as far as I'm concerned.  Microsoft has managed one year of overall profit. We will see how many more they can manage.

1. Nope.  The 360's attach rate regardless is still a 2-3 games per console sold higher.  The PS3 only compares to the Wii in attach rate, and we all know that Wii owners only basically buy their limited main Nintendo games (Wii Fit, Wii Play, Wii Sports, Mario Kart Wii, etc.)

Yawn. Nothing like generalizations. 

2.  Yes.  I am 100% positive.  That is showing their entire entertainment division's losses.  Why would they have reason to hide this figure?  Because you say so?  That's rediculous.  If they have no problem listing the losses as they are, why would they hide just this one loss?  MS is not some big conspiracy company bent on hiding losses of their gaming division like you seem to think.

Most companies engage in it in some way. It's not odd to move money around to show whatever you want.  RROD might not fall under their entertainment division umbrella.  Again, you aren't 100% positive.  You have no hard evidence either way.   It's certainly no more 'rediculous' then spelling ridiculous (rediculous).

It's not a conspiracy, it's business.  MS stock holders might not like seeing an even bigger loss with their entertainment division.  By moving funds around, they easily could show the loss in a far more profitable region of their business and still even show profit there.

3.  By the time they would get close enough in price without Sony taking a major loss, the new generation would be under way and no one would care.  The 360 will almost always maintain a considerable price difference of at least $100 until it is basically too late.  The 360 took 2 years to drop the price $100 across SKU's.  The PS3 on the other hand has already dropped $200 in the same time frame.  That is mostly due to the higher starting price and the greater deal of loss leading by Sony.  But realistically, by 2012 the 360 will cost around $129 for the Pro and the core will be $99 or discontinued.  At the same time the PS3 will only be down to $199-229.  At the same rate, Blu-Ray players will be dropping in price so it will almost always maintain a 360 + Blu-Ray player = PS3 cost, so the added incentive will not be there.  The 360 will always be significantly cheaper, which is what will matter.

The significant 200$ price difference will not exist.  The PS3 at less than 200$ price difference than the 360 (Actually outsells the 360, this was proven last year). The 360's advantage will last as long as it can maintain a 200$ or greater price difference. 

4.  Where did I ever try to bring in studios?  Sure the Sony studios make money off of software, but so far that has been no where near enough to offset the losses of the console.  It seems almost every exclusive on the PS3 sells way to low compared to Microsoft exclusives.  Sure Microsoft doesn't have a million studios, but that also means they don't need to support them with their funds, and can find much cheaper/easier ways of getting exclusives.  Don't blame Microsoft for having the better/cost saving strategy here.

When talking about company entertainment division profits and losses.  This is certainly factored into the equation? No?  Sony having several first party studios (Making profit on probably all of the games they have produced?), this aids in the profit.

5.  And the PS3 has managed how much profit?  Oh that's right, none.  The PS3 will not even post a profit this year unless they avoid all price cuts.  Sure the original Xbox and Zune costs have lowered Microsofts profitability in the Entertainment division, but the Xbox launched much later than the PS2 and was never really able to compete on price and games, which is exactly why the PS3 is failing and will continue to fail this generation.  The numbers seem to say that Microsoft is improving while Sony has only gotten worse over the years.

The numbers seem to suggest that the only company doing well is Nintendo.  After 3 years (The first year Microsoft  made a profit), we will be able to diagnose Sony,  not until.   PS3 is still tracking higher at similar points in it's lifespan than the 360.  The price will move downward with the PS3 (Just as it has with the 360) and sales will r ise accordingly.

The PS3 isn't failing this generation.  Taking third place?  Possibly.  Failing?  Hardly. 

As of right now, The PS3 is failing no more than the 360 has at this point.

The cold hard truth is that both the 360 and PS3 are cutting into each others market shares and dividing their profits tremendously.  The only success story / winner of this generation is Nintendo.   Saying otherwise is completely laughable.