In 2012, the world will explode.  All that will be left is 7 cockroaches, a moon pie, and Nintendo.  They'll be announcing the release of Super Mario Water Polo.

Near the end of the GameCube generation Nintendo released R&D numbers. They said they spent over 250-mill a year R&D on both their home and handheld consoles. Thats 500-million dollars a year in R&D. Don't think for a second that they don't invest as much if not more then Sony does in R&D.

SONY spent more than $2b R&D on PS3 alone.Nintendo didn't do that for Wii and DS combined and hasn't done for any of their consoles or handheld.so they aren't as much or more than SONY's R&D.

again you misunderstand me,i am not trying to say Nintendo don't unvest but as gaming is their sole business and they aren't as big as MS or SONY they take very less risk and always make console that are not expensive in price

Keep in mind the Wiimote has been in the works since the NES. Nintendo also had their own 3D technology at GameCube's launch. Nintendo obviously invested heavily in 3D since they have the 3DS and no other company beat them too it, even Sony's executives don't think its possible I remember Pachter saying if Sony couldn't do it Nintendo definatly couldn't, well they did and are.Also remember when Natal was announced, Nintendo stated at the time that they had also worked on camera technology similiar to Natal but didn't think the technology worked and chose to go with the Wiimote.

Wiimote wasn't in the works since NES.they were working on somethig else out of which after sometime they got the idea of Wii motion control the same way SONY got the idea of MOVE.but both of them were not at start developing the project as we see today

the GAMECUBE 3D you talk about is not real 3D as that kind of 3D can be output by any console.but for the console like the PS3 which can do 3D and transmit 3D at 1080p itself is not what GAMECUBE did.that ways PS2 could also do it

they have the 3DS but i'm sure it doesn't cost much as Nintendo wouldn't release it and they wouldn't take a loss too

you are talking complete bullshit

Think about it a second , even the batteries that go into the DS and such, why do they have like 10x the lasting power of the PSP? Did Nintendo just wish upon a star. Also up until the Wii Nintendo pioneered all their own media formats developing their own cartridges and mini-disks, that costs alot of money that Sony saved by going CD, DVD then BluRay.Lets not forget the gyroscopes, tilt sensors, balance board...vitality sensor.....WiiMotionPlus...... All these peripherals cost money to develope. Think of the amount of R&D that went into creating the vitality sensor for example.

you know that DS is noway near as powerfull as PSP and that way PSP would suck much more power to stay ON?

Nintendo only had their own format because they didn't wanna pay the DVD makers the royalties.And they didn't pioneer anything.the GAMECUBE disc were actually alot like mini-DVDs so they didn't really do much there.they actually just saved costs

those peripherals you talk about use INFRARED which is really an old tech and they don't cost as much as what SONY is investing in R&D.

you simply don't know what you are talking about here

Who knows what Nintendo has been developing without our knowledge. I know Sony spends alot on R&D but Nintendo probubly spends just as much if not more.

who knows what SONY has been developing now in their R7D without our knowledge

but by Nintendo's record and their company being solely gaming based,they will not invest as much

ana they don't spend as much or more than SONY in R&D

again if you understood me,i am not saying Nintendo doesn't spend much but they don't do as SONY do as they can't take as many risks

Nobody said there wasn't a handheld, of course there was a handheld.  Nobody is claiming the gamecube made more money than the PS2.  Nintendo has always owned the handheld market and that isn't changing soon. 

I don't know how you can say PS1 wouldn't have made a profit when it's clear they made money on each console sold, they made 1.13 billion in a year even though they didn't sell nearly as much software or hardware as PS2 in its peak year.  I can only imagine how much money they could have made in the PS2 era if they had followed the same strategy as the PS1.  Actually i can, it would have been close to the wii profits. 

On the contrary, I think Nintendo, with the crapload amount of money they have due to how much their business is profitable (especially compared to Sony), can afford (literally) to take a lot more risks than Sony.

Sony paid IBM to research the CELL? That's new to me.

their company is profitable but SONY and MS have other divisions that make profits too

So you're suggesting Sony set out to lose market share and damage the Playstation brand on purpose in order to make more money off the PS4, which will have a hard time, thanks to the Playstation name being dragged through the mud,

SONY didn't intend to lose market share but their only option to make blu-ray succesful was to inclusde it in PS3.yes the PLAYSTATION brand name has been dragged through the mud but it still has many HARDCORE fans so they can atleast make a push next gen with PS4 at a low price

and to get a percentage of a new format which, going by current tech rates won't be around for all that long anyway.

its not going to be a long way

its going to be the same as DVD.where was DVD when it launched in 1996,and where was it in the daysd when PS2 had it and it became popular at a low price which is what PS4 is going to be.

Is it April fools day already?

is it for you?