I think there were definitely concerns about the bottom line and Sony stated that they were not making a profit on the portal. However, one imagines that they are not making a massive profit on the PS5 knowing what we know about material costs. This extends to the Pro as well as it was revealed that they are developing it on the 4nm process (which in and of itself explain the cost and the modest power usage). You are correct to point out that people mocking Microsoft are actually ignoring that Sony is in fact headed in a similar direction. The difference is that the PlayStation hardware is still selling and there is no cost benefit to shifting away from it in the same way that Microsoft may be incentivized to do so. Plus, there is no evidence at this point that Sony is willing to open up its platform to other vendors. The Portal seems to indicate the opposite.
But the real kicker here is that both companies are diving head first into subscribtion models. In the case ofthe portal, the intial investment is the cheapest console form factor on offer even beating the Series S, but the $300 you save from not needing a PS5 is ultimately returned to them in about 2 and a half years in the form of subscribtion payments.
in addition to offering a game catalog (admittedly large one like 700 games to stream) you will be able to purchase games on PS5 and stream those as well. So depending on your gaming habits, you will ultimately be spending the same amount you would have if you bought a PS5. What we should expect is for many Plus subscribers to upgrade to the Premium tier.
But to bring it back to your first question, no their bottom line is not hurt. In fact, this ensures growth and, from a pure business perspective, we have to admit this was an execellently executed plan. I think their plan is better than Microsoft’s because by linking it their branded hardware, they ensure the survival of the PlayStation home console for the foreseeable future. Oponions will vary of course.