On the first one, let's think of it this way. Let's say software sales are about even regarding both platforms accross all territories. Were we to discount it, then Microsoft would still have probably found their system more profitable than Sony's. Hardware and software sales are about the same, but Microsoft is able to turn in a quicker profit from XBL gold and Kinect (which more people have than PS Plus, but I could see that change in the future). Not to mention the amount R&D for 360 was probably significantly less than PS3 since they used parts already out there rather than build a proccessor from the ground up like Sony did.

Again this is a very basic way to look at it. I'm not saying you're wrong, but there are so many variables that we can't possibly say for sure without better quality data. We don't know how much both teams spent on R & D (building from scratch is not necessarily the most expensive form of R & D, nor is R & D necessarily an expense. Patents and so forth are worth money to organisations). You've also neglected to mention the fact that the PS3 is a Blu-Ray drive, and indeed the major reason that Blu-Ray ended up beating HD DVD, and Blu-Ray is worth additional income to Sony.

Sony's broader product range is also better for cross-selling than Microsoft's. Microsoft is, for the most part, an enterprise technology vendor. Sony, on the other hand, is a consumer electronics company. TVs, Headphones, 3D Glasses - these were all upselling and cross selling opportunities for Sony (even if they weren't all that successful) that Microsoft could not offer.

It's also worth noting that the PlayStation brand is likely more powerful than the Xbox brand in the global market. Sony sells the PlayStation brand through mobile phones and tablets - stuff Microsoft has only just started to touch. Again. Not necessarily all that successful, but the PlayStation brand, centered on the PS3, is quite possibly worth more than the Xbox 360 brand.

There's no way to tell which "wins" without full access to Sony and Microsoft's books, but I can't see how anyone could declare a "winner" based on the data we do have.

Do you not remember that Microsoft had the largest amount of system failures in history of gaming? Does "Red Ring of Death" ring a bell?

Considering that mostly happened while PS3's weren't selling (and when they did they were at a gargantuan loss. that doesn't really help much. Granted, it's a good point in and of itself, but the circumstances around it keep it from being a substantial negative for Microsoft and a positive for Sony.

Now, yes, I understand that it's impossible to state for sure which system did better without data, but if I were to guess from what I can see, I would hypothesize that the 360 was more successful than the PS3 at this exact moment in time.

How does one problem amount to the largest in history? lol

As horrible as it is to say, that probably did more good than harm to microsoft's profits, considering if you already have a library of games and your 360 fails, you're more likely to buy a new one. Just glad mine never failed. Haven't had to replace it once yet. Then again I can't say the same for the controllers...