To awnser sentence by sentence;

1. Wrong. They tried to have the most powerful hardware only this last generation. Since Ps1 < N64 and Ps2 < GC < Xbox in terms of power.

2. That's the only true point, but yet it's not beacause they care more. It's just beacuse they must have free online, if they want to compete with the enstablished Xbox Live.

3. This one depends on opinions. EAD, Intelligent Systems and Retro would make me say the other guy, has the best 1st pary studios. But anyone rightfully has its own opinions.

4.Wrong again. The real reson why Ps3 made them lose money is beacuse Sony tought: Ps2 helped DVD to enstablish so the Ps3 will be an help to sell more HDTVs and Blu-ray movies, even if it costs 599$. They were wrong, most people back in 2006 had no reason to upgrade to HDTVs, when most TV channels were still analog, or not HD anyway. Also most people in 2006, and still now, don't need to play blu-ray movies when they can have DVDs. Don't get me wrong, I love blu-rays but not as a gamer. It's a fact that blu-ray are totally worthless unless you have the proper expansive video, and also audio, equipment to play them.In other words what Soonerman said before: "They thought they could shove expensive crap down people's throats".

Also, a while ago, ioi said Vgchartz is a business, not a charity, that applies very well to gaming in general.

They are willing to lose money on hardware since they know they will make it up in game licensing. Microsofty does the same thing, and Nintendo did in the past... It's pretty common to lose money initially on hardware sales. I dont any of the companies really care about their userbase as much as they care about expanding it to generate more income, maybe a reason why Sony tries to sign more developers (that and potential game licensing income).

Nintendo has better first party development team. Especially Nintendo. Most of the first party Sony games I played like KillZone, Resistance, Uncharted, Littlebig Planet and ModNation got boring after a few plays. On the other hand Nintendo first parties keep me entertain for years. Some of them don't  but pretty much all of them do. 

Although that your opinion I believe so is mine here.

Um what?

If they CARED so much, then they would have worked on a common standard so we wouldn't have had a HD/Blu-ray format war that left many consumers and DVD producers with equipment they can't use anymore. They didn't listen to the DVD manufactures and just wanted to make their own monopoly. It's hurt the entire industry and do this day many manufactures do not put in Blu-ray players (i.e. Apple.)

The remembered losing the Beta/VHS war and wanted to win this time. Many consumers had great Betamax's that they couldn't get any tapes.

The only reason they put ‘extra tech’ in the PS3 was to win the format war. They just wanted to win and phooey on the consumers the chose the wrong format. Remember both the Xbox and Gamecube were more powerful than the PS2.

CD’s were a great success because every CD would play on every CD player. The industry agreed and worked out a common standard.

Sony does many things well, but working with others for the sake of the consumer is not one of them. The want to win (whatever winning is.)

Sony is working hard on games because Microsoft and Nintendo keep challenging them. So that’s how the gamer (consumer) wins. IMO.

Voted no, but that's not to say they care LESS about their consumers either.

All three of the companies are trying their hardest to please their consumers, as well as to please people that aren't currently their consumers. A realist, such as myself, would say they do this for financial reasons, not out of care for people.

Sony takes losses on hardware for the same reason that MS improved their warranty for RROD, which was the same reason Nintendo offered free games to early adopters of the 3DS after the price cut - they want to please their customers to turn them in to repeat customers.

Sony took back features advertised on the PS3 for the same reason why MS closed many studios, which was the same reason why Nintendo diverted a lot of effort into extended audience games - they are companies and they need to make money.

 I did understand your question but still, no. They then expect us to pay a lot of money just because they decided to go the more advanced and 'future' route, which isn't a bad thing, but they tend to go a little overboard and then expect the consumer to pay a ton for their "extra spending" on research and stuff.

They're are trying to make money.
Sometimes I like nintendo more sometimes I like sony.

But I normally am biased against microsoft. Because they released windows vista, and my 360 broke. But if I had my ps3 or ps2 broke like it did for some. I'd be the same against sony.

They "care" about the market they're going for as much as they have to and as long as that market is still relevant.

I say they do, simply because of their investment in 1st party studios.
more 1st party studios-->more exclusives (only on console not on pc)-->overall better game line up.