"IMO" I hate nintendo for having so much money but having not enough or barely having any good third party titles for the Wii.

 1. Hmm, seems like you're describing Sony here. They're not pushing themsleves to the limit, as in have record breaking sales, they don't expand the frontier, as in they only cater to hradcore gaming demographics, they're stuck with old methods, like in not having any kind of innovation, only bigger, more complex games with prettier graphics, AND they released an overprised console, as the 360 was better in almost every way software wise when the thing launched at $600.

  2. Hmm, why would Sony and Microsoft be willing to take losses like that? Oh, I know: because if the PS3 would've launched at over $1000, making it profitable form launch, it wouldn't sell more copies than Gamecube on a weekly base. Not like how Gamecube was selling at the beginning of its life, no, like Gamecube was selling end of 2006. The same can be applied for Microsoft, but they made huge losses mainly due to other things than the console being super-expensive to produce.

 3. They have attempted to make an HD-console for sure, but during the brainstroming-phase the idea already died, because only companies which would be stupid, not caring about money or not knowing the industry would make an HD-console this early. 

I think Nintendo made the right choice: making money instead of being liked and having gained the respect of Username2324.

On-topic: I don't hate Nintendo at all.

Nope. They have a lot less money than Sony or Microsoft.

Nintendo makes games and game related items only.

I willingly give them a lot of money because I like their products.

Congratulations, this is the most delightfully warped viewpoint I have ever read. 

1. Didn’t expand the frontier? You must be kidding. They are the only company that did change the face of gaming and open it to a whole new population. And they did it by a truly innovative and accessible method of game play.  You may not like the changes ithat are standing the industry on its ear, but please don’t pretend that they stuck “to old methods”. Your obsession with HD as the end all and be all does not make it innovative and certainly not an innovation that MS or Sony can take credit for. 

2. The Wii is profitable yes, but not that profitable. Best industry estimates are that Nintendo grosses about $50 per unit and nets about half of that or 10%. 

3. And please, what idealistic naiveté lead you to believe that Microsoft and Sony “were willing” to lose money as a noble sacrifice on behalf of the consumer. Bull pockey! They had no intention of losing money on anyone’s behalf; that’s not the way business operates. Microsoft lost money primarily because of inadequate testing leading to a billion dollar screw up. Sony lost money because of some very bad business decisions, the worst of which was designing a console that couldn’t be sold at a price point that was profitable. They certainly didn’t do it deliberately and they didn’t do it for you. 

4. The incredible sales indicate clearly that Nintendo’s decision not to add the additional cost of HD was the right one. Apparently not everyone shares your HD tunnel vision. 

5. If you still believe that the Wii sells solely because of price you obviously are not one to let mere facts distort your prejudices. With forced bundling, the Wii is already more expensive than the Xbox especially in Europe with no discernable impact on the sales of either.

I like Nintendo. By staying in business they reduce the chances of suïcide in Japan.

Nintendo took a HUGE gamble with Wii and DS, don't even try to downplay that.

And I'd be surprised if Nintendo was making more than $50 on each Wii, considering there is actually a bump in technology and the remotes aren't cheap to make. 

ha ha.  i like that.  money can't buy happiness but it can definitely buy a hot chick.

I don't understand how one would hate a company, especially since it's not directly affecting your livelihood. It's not like Nintendo's controlled the government or anything!

Sure... and no... I'm against a major shift in wealth and I deem a wealth tax should be in place in order to balance that shift. Income tax would be abolished and only a wealth tax would be in place.

Well actually income tax should be around 15% not 37% Wealth tax should be around 15% also.

Which would add up to 30% anyway, just that the wealthier you are the more money goes back, rather than just your income.

No, I don't hate them for any reason...