Why bringing  sony here for comparison? To show us that sony has more money? companies wars? So needless!

Anyway,  irrelevant comparison...  However, I will follow you to the wars because you deserve an answer!

Please, remind me how many divisions sony has? Hmmm...

Nintendo's money are in the ovewhelming majority  from gaming since it's just a video game Company... Sony's? Music, Movies, cameras. tv e.t.c?

Yea, the Wii U did a number on them.  If the NX is a repeat of the Wii U, or even just slightly more successful, Nintendo will be done with HW.  My guess is they will try to go mobile before they go 3rd party on the PS or XB, but we'll see.

why though? If you have a failed system where you lose only like 5% of your company value (most likely, because even if the NX 'flopped' its not as if it would mean Nintendo wouldn't sell a decent amount of them to break even), why the sudden rush to go third party?

I mean just as an example look how long it took Sega. Sega was losing money and in debt for a few YEARS before they even decided to do that. Nintendo on the other hand, even if the NX did poorly, would be still way in the positive

people like to paint it black and white but its just not. Nintendo has too much clout with their IPs to feel pressured to go third party simply due to a few misteps.

Also bear in mind that a lot of Nintendo stock is owned by the the founding family of Nintendo and I am not entirely sure the board would even go for it

I agree with patcher's statement but what do we mean flop? It may sell just 25m,, which would be considered a flop for many people but in the meantime it may have huge profits.

So, what does he mean by flop? Commercial flop doesn't essentially mean money loss! Gamecube is a great example for that and ps3 for the opposite, that commercial success doesn't always mean profiting!

How does predict  the  size of loss of NX if it's a flop when it may not lose money? Nintendo has said that it will be sold on profit from the beginning...

ehhh but Nintendo's assets are mostly cash assets. Sony's has very little cash and I'm pretty sure still debt, the majority of what is considered their 'assets' is loads and loads of electronics and things from their different divisions

I'm just saying liquid assets are generally considered much more valuable. Sony does not have a lot of assets that can be immediately be turned into billions of cash out of nowhere

It will be a fight for the ages between Sony and MS to secure Nintendo.

Transistor technology will plateau making our very reason for buying new hardware obsolete since there will be no way to make faster hardware for a long time aside from increasing the fixed costs of platforms ... 

I think cloud gaming might make some actual inroads since the internet connection around the world will have vastly improved ... 

i certainly like the idea of doing remote play on my portable device with extended distances through the internet streamed from my PC since that means I can play graphically demanding AAA games on the go ... 

I think the key thing about Nintendo, is there asset to debt ratio. They rarely have strong debt.

Actually it's probably better to look at a company's actual balance sheet. 

Sony has 16.67T (JPN yen x million) in assets. Keep in mind of course Sony owns a lot of shit, huge factories, buildings, a movie studio, etc. etc. 

Until you realize they also have 13.54T in liabilities. 

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/sne/financials/balance-sheet

Nintendo has 1.3T in assets, to a very, very low 136B in liabilities. They're a very efficient "little" company with virtually no debt. 

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/ntdoy/financials/balance-sheet