Sony and Microsoft can't compete with Nintendo -- on price

[Sky Render]

mrstickball said:
Yes they can.

Unlike Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft have a long history of pricing their hardware at or below manufacturing costs, unlike Nintendo. This allows them to counter price drops rather quickly.

Nintendo has to make a profit from their gaming division to stay afloat. Nintendo nor MS need to. That allows them a much greater advantage on pricing.

When did we enter an alternate reality? Last I checked, Sony and MS took (and still take) huge losses on their gaming divisions.

FY* Sony** Nintendo Microsoft
1998 974,000,000 629,000,000
1999 1,130,000,000 645,000,000
2000 730,000,000 421,000,000
2001 -409,000,000 726,000,000
2002 623,000,000 800,000,000 -750,000,000
2003 939,000,000 560,000,000 -1,191,000,000
2004 650,000,000 316,000,000 -1,215,000,000
2005 404,000,000 777,000,000 -485,000,000
2006 75,000,000 894,000,000 -1,262,000,000
2007 -1,969,000,000 1,489,000,000 -1,892,000,000
2008 -1,265,000,000 2,480,000,000 426,000,000
2009 51,000,000 1,026,000,000
Totals 1,953,000,000 10,762,000,000 -6,369,000,000

Source: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=111003

Take a look at the launch year of the PS2 for Sony ($409mil in the hole), the launch year and follow-ups for the PS3 ($75mil profit, $1.969bil losses, $1.265bil losses), and tell me how it's possible they get away with taking monumental losses. Microsoft's numbers are even more incriminating for that theory, with constant losses and only a bit of goalpost-shifting on their behalf by shifting a very XBOX-related loss (the $1bil XB360 replacement plan) to another division to show a profit they didn't actually make on video games. And how did Nintendo manage to make significant profits even in their worst year if they rely on software alone for profits and software sales were at all-time lows in those years?

Please check the facts before you make ridiculous claims. That is all.