@kjj4t9rdad: I can compare them for the reasons that none made money on the market with their last console (by this i don't mean PS3 would be Sonys last console, latest, but not last). The amount of money Sony sank into PS3 by selling it, would have sank the company without the companys other functions backing it.
Atari lost with the crash it caused for not having control over the market it owned. Nintendo stole the market and Atari couldn't make a comeback to compete Nintendo. It did try a comeback with Jaguar, but due to bad sales, and relatively big inventory, it was forced to leave the market.
A little similar thing happened to Sega. Only this time Sega pissed off its fans (killed its market) and due to competition from Sony (and Nintendo) it couldn't come back. Due to bad sales and huge inventory of Dreamcast, Sega was forced out of the market (if DC or Saturn had reached the amount of consoles sold as PS3 stands today, Sega hadn't exited the market it would be doing well).
Mattel then again, exited the market after the videogame crash, because they didn't see a future in the market. In the end, Mattel ended distributing NES.
Nintendo is still alive and well for the reason of not selling their products at a loss.
The razor and blades model is a stupid model when your razor owners don't need the blades to use the razor.
And Nintendo did take the biggest risk for the reason that failing in the consoles would have meant the end of Nintendos business. During the PS3 R&D SCE was still making good profits, so the R&D wasn't a risk. Selling the product at a loss wasn't a risk in the sense that it wasn't seen as one. The same model worked with PS2, so of course it works with PS3 and they still had PSP bringing in even more cash if PS3 would need extensive financial support (during the R&D process, PSP was still supposed to beat DS).
@BladeOfGod: Nintendo is a brand, Sony is a brand. Basically every company/product name there is, is a brand.