Both of you need to go to the nearest place of higher education and enroll in the most basic econ class on the carriculum......asap.

Whether you like it or not, without Sony and MS we may have been sent back 6 years in progress (Online support, cartridge games) for our videogame lives.

There was a fine grey area around the n64 launch and Sony moved the videogame market forward while nintendo was slacking, and MS did the same with online play and expectations.  While they may not be as curcial as Nintendo overall, to assume wed be at a better place with just nintendo is assenine 

Indeed, this article is spot-on. Sony's failings are well known in the blogosphere/forums, but I don't think many appreciate how poorly the 360 is doing also.

To have a years head-start, a seemingly endless supply of AAA games coming out, a reasonably (but still a bit too expensive IMHO) price-point... and to be tracking behind/even with the Xbox1 which was a loser console that was released late with no games up against the already-established PS2 behomeath... Well, it's bad

Sega Saturn was using CD-ROMs just like the PSX (not to mention Sega CD), Sega Dreamcast was the first video game console to employ an internet connection (almost 10 years ago) for multiplayer gaming.

You have a point with Xbox Live, it is indeed highly doubtful that Sega or Nintendo could have established an online service of equal quality. I do not argue that in terms of technological advancement Sony and MS might have brought some achievements, but my reasoning was based on rather intangible values.

Sony has contributed a lot.  Sony loses money on consoles trying to give people a good deal on what is very expensive technology so that people will enjoy the benefits years down the road.  Nintendo has to make money, too, you know, and they are making money on every system sold right now because they released a system that is not very advanced compared to the last.  Do you not want the industry to grow and games to look and play better?  I sure do.  I love the new development of the motion controls as standard in a console, so I applaud Nintendo for that, but it wouldn't have killed them to make the system more powerful either.

I'm not sure why you think Nintendo doesn't care about money.  Every company cares about money.  I'm sure the stockholders wouldn't like hearing about how Nintendo just wants everyone to have fun just for the sake of letting everyone have fun.  Mario creator might feel that way, but Nintendo as a whole just wants to make money just like most people in this world, especially businesses.  Good grief.

Sony now has 10+ years of tradition and DOMINANCE.  They dominated 2 generations like no other company has. Sega never did much besides provide Sonic, which they have nearly ruined now, crappy expansions to a console that didn't contribute anything positive, and a nice handheld that needed a better battery.  The most important thing was providing competition to Nintendo, but Sony has done a much better job at that.  Microsoft is the new Sega, doing well in the US market but hardly selling in the Japanese market (and it's even worse with M$).

Don't try to make Nintendo seem like some sort of a Saint company, because it's not. First of all, video games were made to make cash. The first company that made video games was not Nintendo; Nintendo merely imitated the strategy to make cash. Now that the gaming industry is a good portion of the market, other companies have started following the strategy.

 You are kinda wrong here, it would kill them. They would need a higher price point and higher development costs so we wouldn't see much support from developers & consumers because Nintendo is not the one the majority of people would trust about its support and so we would see a lot more sales. Look what happened to Sony, they made an ultra-powerful system and it costs 600$. If Wii's cost was at 400$ there would be HALF the sales because who would give so much money to buy a non-established platform? If Nintendo had 3rd Party support last gen they (Ninty & Consumers) would be more sure about their system sales and support and would probably powered it up a bit more so people would not be afraid to buythe Wii.

 this is like pointing to a motion control game and saying the wii didnt harness the genre and make it work.

well, your reasoning wasnt based on reality but some love affair with nintendo. 

The PC Engine was the first console to use CD-Roms... waaaay Back in1988 as it happens.

Sony loses money on consoles trying to give people a good deal on what is very expensive technology so that people will enjoy the benefits years down the road.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Sony sells their system at a loss with the belief that you'll pay them back every cent in the future, many times over.

In theory, Microsoft has the same belief, but as was stated by someone else, they seem to be running a charity.

"you ever use a PC ?  ever use their CRAP software ?"

Uh... yeah... apparently so do the vast majority of game developers that are cranking out those lovely games on "Windows-infested" PCs so that you and I can play the latest games...