"1 dollar spent on Sony or Microsoft products means 1 dollar to feed hardware and software developers for the production of more and better games. 1 dollar spent on Nintendo products means a very significant part of it out of the videogaming industry. It’s interesting to realize that the only 100% gaming corporation making consoles nowadays is also the only one taking money away from the gaming cycle.

32B$, that is Nintendo’s “debt” towards gamers as of 2011. 1.2B$ is the Sony’s “debt” as of 2010 but now it must be nothing. With Microsoft, it’s the opposite: gamers have a “debt” of 6.8B$ as of 2011."

As the wishfull utopian op pointed out, Sony and Microsoft are losing money (or just breaking even), and Nintendo is making a profit (it seems these are the lifetime profits of the brand, not a yearly).  So, the OP, who doesn't seem to understand business, will be heartbroken when Nintendo is around in 5 years, and either Sony or Microsoft pulls a Sega and exits the console business because they aren't making a profit.

Microsoft will probably be the company that pulls out, unless the Xbox One becomes very profitable.  Also, Sony is one mistake away from a company to losing everything.  Playstation in that case would probably be bought during a liquidation, if the PS4 is actually making a profit.  We honestly don't know if Sony or Microsoft are making money.  Sure, Sony isn't taking a huge loss on the hardware, but investing into its 1st and 2nd party games, as well as lining up exclusive 3rd party content, is risky, and they might not be able to recoup the investment if the games do not sell well.

Nintendo is taking a beating lately, since they have finally entered the HD age, and have seen their game budgets rise.  They just aren't selling enough of their 1st and 2nd party titles in order to gain that money back.

I agree, voice is just another instrument. But then I answer you what I've said already to MDM:

"If you are able to count the number of instruments used to create the soundtrack in Mario 64 and the same number regarding Sonic Adventure 1, then feel free to post them here. I can't and therefore vocal music is one of the few indicators I have at disposal."

It's not contradictory. You use money instead of effort, which is also a sign of commitment. In the end, everything falls into one of the 3 variables I have been presenting: effort, time and money. They don't mean quality, but they mean commitment to quality.

Note that Sonic Adventure has an exclusive soundtrack, so it was not just about licensing music, they hired bands to produce tailored music tracks to game levels and characters. Nintendo did the same with Mario Galaxy, or do you think they created an entire orchestra by themselves and that now it's part of their studios?

Original music hasn't become the standard (vocal music has). Yet, more examples of games with original vocal music: Sonic R (1997), Sonic Adventure 2 (2001), TrackMania Sunrise (2005), Crashday (2006), TrackMania 2 (2011).

WipEout (1995) has also original vocal performances, but they are very limited. How are they on F-Zero GX and Zelda Wind Waker?

Sure. Take the time you need.

This poster knows what he is talking about.

Don't forget to mention that Nintendo has done most of the innovating in the industry.  Sony doesn't care about innovation, but mainly adding more power into their system.  Microsoft's only innovation has been the online multiplayer capabilities of console gaming (which, before the xbox was pretty crappy).

Gamers owe a lot to Nintendo, whether they realize it or not.  Sure, Nintendo pulled out of the losing battle that is taking place over whose console is more powerful, but in doing so they have focused on making games more fun to play.  Personally, I don't give a damn about the motion controls of the Wii, but a lot of people did.  The Wii had some damn good games on it though.  I do love the gamepad on my Wii U, probably because I love my DS and 3DS also.  

Let's also not forget that Microsoft and Sony keep copying everything Nintendo does.  Nintendo brings us motion controls, so Sony and Microsoft bring us Kinect and Move.  Nintendo has the gamepad, so Sony uses tablets (what a joke) and Microsoft has it's Glass stuff that I don't know much about.

Gamers need to quit bashing Nintendo just because they try to do things differently.  Without Nintendo, we would have a lot less games on the market, and a lot less variety.  Without Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft wouldn't do anything other than building steam boxes without steam.

a. So you are admitting to using a flawed metric that in essence, says absolutely nothing about anything. Good, I'm glad we are on the same page and agree that you are just making things up because its convenient. 

Also, as such you are admitting that games like Mario galaxy (feature a 50 piece orchestra) are among the most "evolved" of all video game music, and certainly more evolved than licenced soundtracks. 

b. Once again, I laugh at the fact that you assume that in any way, licenced soundtracks are greater (note: I didn't say superior) than original soundtracks. Original soundtracks take a large amount of effort and time and money whereas licenced soundtracks only really take money. I think by your own metrics, we can agree that original soundtracks are greater than licenced in two out of three or your categories, with the third being inconclusive without knowing specific figures which are verifiably impossible to attain. 

You say that Sonic Adventure used an original soundtrack, but one game franchise does not an industry standard make. Other people have already posted examples of Nintendo using vocals in their songs all the way back in the SNES era. (your snide comment about Nintendo buying an orchestra is not appreciated by the way). I would also like to add that Nintendo composed all of the music in the Super Mario Galaxy series, they didn't simply hand it off to an orchestra and tell them to write music...

Additionally, it seems to me from the examples you posted that "vocal music" became the "industry standard" in the mid 2000s and as I have already pointed out, Nintendo implemented vocals in their music long before then and they certainly didn't follow anybody.

Also, you are equating Sonic and Mario in some of your quotes and saying that they are the same type of game but I would disagree. Sonic tries to be "cool" (see: Shadow the Hedgehog) and as such implements cheezy rock soundtracks into their games while Mario games tend to be more whimsical and as such impliment a very different style of music (fun fact: Super Mario Galaxy was originally going to have a latin inspired soundtrack, however after completing 28 tracks, it was decided that it just didn't fit the feel of the game. As such, the music was changed to orchestral compositions). You said that you fail to see why Nintendo didn't follow in SEGA's footsteps with the mario games and I think that is pretty clear by the reception the soundtracks from mario games tend to receive (IGN gave Mario Galaxy a Perfect 10 in Audio). 

Finally, Wind Waker uses a choir in many of the songs on its soundtrack while F-Zero uses lyrics for the character introductions (and possibly more, I don't remember)...

EDIT: After listening to a few songs from the soundtracks you suggested to me earlier I can objectively say that I cannot objectively say which required more effort. In my opinion, they are all well suited to their respective games and using one soundtrack style for the other game would negatively impact the game as a whole (my opinion of course).

I still don't know where you get off judging "effort" just by listening to something. There is a lot that goes into music. I'll tell you, as a musician, some of my best songs I composed over the course of an afternoon (or even during improvisation) while others which I think are worse I spent weeks and weeks on.

1.  No, I said, essentially, 'yes, they may emulate real fighting techniques, but they also have ridiculous crap like Ivy's chain sword etc.', which segues into a more general point about the relative levels of realism in both games.  But even concentrating on just the fighting techniques, I ADDRESSED YOUR POINTS, and you just dismissed it. 

As for the MDM challenge:  "Nintendo has made more profit off of games than Sony or Microsoft." 

I also have a bonus challenge in mind, but it's only for after you're completely done fulfilling your challenge on the above statement.  "The fact that Nintendo is completely reliant on video game sales as a company suggests it has more at stake concerning the well-being and future of the video game industry than either Microsoft or Sony, and therefore more reason to care about it." 

2a.  First, when do you say music became an "established form of art", and what is your evidence for that claim?  Second, where is your evidence that instrumental music predates V+I music in the "established art" form? 

As for me, I would expect that both of them have been "established forms of art" since practically the dawn of civilization, or at least of comparable antiquity, along with vocal-only art.  But I will not claim this is actually the case based only on my guess, never mind that it's an educated guess. 

2b.  I didn't base that assertion on my opinion of those types of music, but rather logic.  Consider: 
–Since I+V music is, in fact, I PLUS V, doesn't it stand to reason that if you take out all the complexity in the V part, the I-only remains will be likely to be less complex than I-only music that still has all of its complexity and was DESIGNED to be complete by itself while the I-minus-V music wasn't? 
–Doesn't it stand to reason that the more components are in something, the more complexity can be achieved?  Nintendo's orchestral music would therefore have much more potential complexity than a rock band with less than a dozen people in it (including the singer). 

3.  Dammit.  The same thing applies:  you don't perceive the COMMITMENT of Nintendo.  Do you honestly think it's cheap to hire an entire ORCHESTRA?!  No, this is too distracting.  Never mind. 

@#1:  That is an arbitrary definition for the beginning of music since there are many cultures that used singing as their primary source of music.  Singing, by nature, is easier to pull off than using musical instruments.  With singing, you have everything you need right there with no preparation.  With instruments, you need to have it built and have some kind of understanding of music prior to make it worth anything by itself.  

@#2: What makes you think that?  What makes adding vocals to music more complex than adding any arbitrary instrument to the mix?  I'll give you the answer:  It doesn't.  You aren't even defining what "complex" even is.  The reason why vocals weren't possible before but instruments were has a lot to do with the fact that voices aren't static.  They are dynamic.  Which also means that dynamic instruments also weren't possible with the older technology.  

@#3:  Just because you are incapable of understanding other forms of music, doesn't mean vocal music (one of the only things you seem to have at your 'disposal') is automatically the answer.  If you had done a research paper like this, you would fail.

@#4:  Saying it suggests is also jumping to a conclusion.  There's nothing about your argument that even remotely suggests anything of the sort.

How music has evolved or changed throughout the ages isn't as simple as "it began with instrumental and evolved into vocal".

• It's really hard to tell if the history of music started with humans using their voices or using basic instruments. As far as I know no evidence exists that proves that one predates the other. If you're going to use your theory that instrumental music evolved into vocal music you'll have to provide proof to ack it up. Also, there's the possibility that some groups of people started with instruments while others used their voices first, making the whole argument rather pointless.
• Regardless of which one came first, humans began using both in the prehistoric era and since then music has evolved a lot. The evolution of music did not stop once both instrumental and vocal music had been "invented". New instruments were created paving the way for new genres and new ways to create music. Music were used for recreational and religious purposes but was also used in dance, warfare, in storytelling, to calm children etc. Eventually a system was created so that musicians could write down the music on paper. Humans used music in theatre, they created musicals, symphonies, operas etc. I could go on but the picture should be clear by now. Music has evolved a lot since the days of the prehistoric man.

I'm opposed to the idea that "more evolved" music requires more effort and is more complex by default. Therefore I'm opposed to the idea that you can rank different types of music and thus I won't do that. Rock evolved from Blues, Jazz and a few other genres, and rock eventually evolved into metal music. Does that mean that Metal is more complex and requires more effort than Rock? Does Rock require more effort and is it more complex than Blues? Are all of them more complex and do they all require more effort than classical music? No, it doesn't work that way. Now, they could require more effort but it could also be the other way around. It all depends on the composition. You can make very complex music using only a piano. You can also make very basic music on a piano. Likewise you can make complex or basic music using a singer, a drummer and a guitarist. But there's no rule saying that one is more complex than the other by nature, and if such a rule exists I'd like someone to present it to me.

With this in mind I fail to see how one could claim that the music in Mario would be less evolved than the music used Sonic due to the use of vocals in Sonic's soundtrack. You could provide evidence showing that instrumental music is older (something you have failed to do) but even if you did it wouldn't have much meaning when you take the history of music in consideration. Likewise I also fail to see how one could claim that one or the other required more effort merely because of the inclusion of vocal music in Sonic's soundtrack. For that you'd have to find out how much money and time was spent on creating the music, and even then you'd have to ignore than some musicians can create more with less effort, and you'd also have to ignore the possibility that the use of instrumental-only or a mix between instrumental and vocal music simply was a design choice. In fact, that possibility makes the whole argument rather pointless in my honest opinion.

While this isn't evidence, this sort of illustrates my point that it makes more sense that vocals came first.
http://www2.lawrence.edu/fast/KOOPMAJO/antiquity.html

Basically Nintendo killed Nintendo with bad and even dirty 'dictator' businesses. No wonder why all 3rd parties migrated from SNES to PS1. I always wonder what happened there, only now I realized that was Nintendo bad businesses that caused it, and not huges paychecks from Sony.

They tried to get a monopoly out of it, and ended up being last. Yet, I disagree with the gamer debt. Unlike Sony or Microsoft who can get their money out from other businesses to invest in gaming, Nintendo can't. So they need to make always profit, no matter what, they're a gaming industry only. Maybe they should just start making games for other consoles, and let their own console die ~ Even if I believe, Nintendo will be the only one to release a 'next-gen' console. I'm not seeing Sony neither Microsoft doing another console !

Nintendo killed Nintendo is a simple yet accurate way to describe many of their failures and mishaps.

Nintendo's way of handling 3rd parties during the NES and SNES generations most certainly didn't help in the N64/PSX era. And to make matters worse Nintendo's console was the last one to hit the market, it used cartridges (whoever thought that was a good idea is an idiot) and focused way too much on 3D in a time when many games still relied on 2D technology. As much as I loved the N64 it was a tremendous failure for Nintendo and they're still paying the price for it.