You're missing the point. Xbox 360 lost $125 per console at launch, PS3, despite its high price made a $240 loss per console and it nearly crippled them. Microsoft could be kpre reserved as they will have known the PS3 cost will have been high due to the technology like blu ray etc.
Games are where the money is made, through licensing to sell on platforms etc all the boring stuff. Phil Spencer (Xbox gaming VP) has gone on record in the past to say quite openly that the hardware is not the money maker, the money making is in the game selling. And this was around the Xbox One X launch. The manufacturers have always been very open about the fact that the hardware makes losses, especially early on. The fight is how much loss can you afford to be competitive and take a bigger risk for more market share.
My point is, Sony will be less likely to take a bigger hit per console again, whereas Microsoft can, they aren't in financial hardship, Sony have been. Microsoft will likely have a stronger exclusive launch lineup (i know this is speculative but the Sony show was hardly exciting from a console launch perspective). And if that's where the moneybis and they have the confidence in the gears, halo, forza franchises, plus being the lead console for Assassin's Creed Valhalla after the critical success of Odyssey plus 2 year wait, there will be a big driving force behind that game too.
This is of course all theory but it feels like we've been here before, only this time Microsoft don't want to repeat the absolute horror show of the Xbox One launch.
Current install base and console ownership also doesn't mean too much. Look at the PS2 vs OG xbox. If we based it on that ths PS3 should have walked all over the 360, but it didn't because the 360 was a far more attractive proposition and they stole the market share.