Excerpt from above link:
"Selling a console at a loss is typical for Sony and Xbox house Microsoft. Console makers sell hardware below costs to establish an initial install base, then make money back after a time when economies of scale make hardware profitability possible."
The implication is that the console sales generally do become profitable in the long term, even without the hugely profitable software, so long as sales volume reaches expectations.
Yes on a long enough timeline most of the hardware does become mildly profitable. Not always though, the original Xbox never did due to nVidia refusing to reduce the cost of their chipset, it was a fantastic cash cow for them. It's been speculated that was the reason MS went to ATi for the Xbox360s chipset/GPU.
Besides which by the time console hardware finally becomes profitable it's in the end-stage of it's life and so selling a much smaller volume of units. If you've sold 10 million units at a $20 dollar loss, but at the end you manage to sell 1 million units at $20 profit, you still made a $180 million loss overall.
It's not a problem because that's just not the model that they chase.
You seem to be arguing that they don't do this even though MS, Sony, Sega (
Saturn & Dreamcast) and even Atari (
Jaguar) all acknowledge that this is exactly what they do. I am understanding right or are you just wanting to find out more about it?
Commodore never did this because they couldn't control the format (disc/CD), peripherals and development in the same way that companies do now. Nintendo have never done it because they've never seen the need and would prefer it if everything just printed it's own money like the gameboy does for them with every minor revision.
Andy