Likely because they're more gaming focused so their investors reports would have a lot of gaming focused data in it while Sony and MS are larger companies in more industries so will have reports that are more broad across all of them and not as gaming focused.

Iwata. That's why. He was always pretty up front about success and failure. Even apologizing for 3DS price and taking a massive paycut. He was just very upfront and I believe Kim taking over continues that. Esp since he is a former Banker.

Thats used for video game. :D

Tissues are used for masturbation, that doesn't mean Kleenex is in the porn industry.

Like many, I wished Nintendo did let NPD to include digital figures about Nintendo games, but yeah, I also get the feelling Nintendo is more open about sales figures than the others. The other don't usually go into more specifics unless it is breaking records or doing exceptionally good, and even so it is hard for them do go into bigger details. Nintendo also was pretty open about the Wii U console sales even in the quarters it was doing way less than good.

Point of Labo is card box addon and Labo game, I dont see how that has anuthing with Tissues and porn industry. ;)

They also never tried to conceal their abysmal WiiU numbers either.
Sony stopped reporting Vita numbers when it was becomeing increasingly clear that it wasn't lighting the world on fire and microsoft wont even report on their Xbox numbers, even though they aren't doing that bad (just not better than sony).

That said, while we do get reliable sales data from nintendo it is rare that we get development or marketing budgets, let alone profit margins on individual software and hardware, wich is more alonf the lines of what Jim was talking about.

It is safe to say that most Nintendo games are produced on smaller than average budgets if compared o the industry and are likely to turn a profit even with lackuster sales.

They also don't get you with microtransactions (for now) but by just not lowering their prices significantly unless they offer their games as part of the 'selects' line.
The average Nintendo game has a much slower price decay and a much more stable asking price than most other first parties, let alone third party games.

They also aren't afraid to unabashedly ask 60$ for a barely improved port on a game that already made it's money back, where other publishers would definitely sell at a lower price. Nintendo tends to go with a 'premium' strategy when it comes to software.

I recall something around launch of the Switch that it got out that Zelda needed to sell about 2 million to be successful. Is that something?

Yeah, that's one of the reasons I said it was rare and also that it's safe to assume that Nintendos budgets are smaller than industry average.

I mean, we could probably do some math and arrive at a rough estimate, for what Zelda BOTW cost to make, but then we still don't know if that was only the development buget or if that number includes marketing (my guess would be the former). What we can tell is that despite a 300 strong development team and it being the most ambitious and biggest scale game Nintendo ever made the budget was rather modest by comparison.

I think it's pretty simple. Those numbers are much more important for Nintendo's overall business, so it makes sense to have them available for investors. But for Sony and Microsoft, they really aren't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.