Seriously, unless you're shareholder at either MS/Sony/Nintendo what relevance is it to you how much profit their making right now? The point is there are. The fact that you want them to take less risk and be more conservative while probably still charging 300+ for hardware is mind boggling. What benefit would it be to you if MS & Sony made similar consoles as Nintendo? Do you like having less options?
Here's a question to test your position: do you think it would be good if Corvette offered to sell all their cars for 1 dollar?
Good side: you get a Corvette today for 1 dollar.
Bad side: you never get a Corvette ever again afterwards, because they'll be bankrupt within hours.
Do you care about Corvettes in particular, or do you just want the best possible deal you can get
right now, regardless of the consequences long term?
The same basic principle applies here. Profitability allows a company to grow and expand its offerings to you. Some games and services which would exist today if the Playstation 3 made 5 billion dollars do not exist in reality because the Playstation 3 lost 5 billion. Some new IPs or creative ideas which might have been greenlit by companies such as EA, Take 2 and THQ don't exist today because the costs are too high and insolvency is a real issue (consider THQ as an example).
If the consoles aren't profitable, then corners will eventually need to be cut -- the only reason they haven't been cut
yet is that Sony and MS had assumed, until quite recently, that the convergence device of the future was going to be a video game console.
Furthermore, having hardware be profitable from day 1 allows the manufacturers to take other risks instead. If I'm taking a 100 dollar loss on a machine (a la Xbox 360 at launch), the system has to be as safe as possible; it needs to appeal to a reliable market and feature safe, time tested designs, because putting out a risky, innovative product
while also risking loss leading is insane. However, if you have a system that makes money from the start, you can be more inventive with hardware; you can try hardware designs and ideas which legitimately run the risk of failure, because in the worst case scenario of total failure you're at least safeguarding yourself against losses.
There are lots of good reasons to want companies to step down from the arms race; it would provide a safer long term outlook (which I assume you want, and would like consoles to still exist 10-15 years from now), it would allow companies to divert much of their risk tolerance towards creative hardware design, and it would help games which cannot be funded in the current risk averse market climate have a significantly greater chance of acquiring funding.
