That's what I don't get about people spinning Sony's financial history, it's objectively better to make money with little to no loss at all than it is to make huge losses and make some money on the side, Sony lost a lot last gen with the PS3, the chart above even shows and people will still try to spin it as being perfectly fine and healthy, it's really not healthy considering the other sectors Sony now has to shed that aren't making them a profit, I could imagine if MS hadn't fucked up and Sony didn't make a decent PS4 it would have cost Sony even more this gen.

I think if anything it's more important long term for Nintendo to win the war and not a single battle, they managed this even with the GC being of higher quality yet selling not as well as the PS2 but they weren't exactly selling at a major loss like Sony was with the PS3.

PS3 still had 3rd party support despite the bungled launch and slow start, and their hardware wasn't a generation behind the 360s. They had to burn through a ton of cash to do it, not to mention overcome the PR disaster that was the PSN hack which took down the network for almost a month.

Nintendo now has the worst 3rd party support in their history, the Wii U is not powerful enough to compete with the top 1st and 3rd party releases on PSOne, and they've already had installments of all their top franchises besides Zelda and Metroid hit the Wii U 2 years into its life, and still its getting outsold by the X1 after its slow start.

Nintendo's problem is marketing.

Smart arses can act like it's third party support or the system's power or whatever, but I've always maintained that the Wii U's only problem was marketing.

The Wii sold more than the PS3 and 360 did, despite not supporting HD, having no annoying social apps, laggy online, and nowhere near the power that both the PS3 and 360 had. Thanks to marketing. Unlike the PS3 and 360, that were mainly aimed at young men, the Wii targeted all audiences, every demographic, to the point where there were even oldies in retirement homes playing them. It was everywhere.

First time I saw the Wii U I thought it was a $300 Wii add-on to go with the rest, and I'm sure most casual players and parents thought the same. The gamepad was the only thing shown at times, and the actual console was sat behind it. Like they were milking the Wii's name and success.

as a cooperation you can sell these loses to others

and still they make more money...

Marketing and third party are the first reasons that come to mind.

The main difference is that Nintendo's console success barely even influence other nintendo consoles' success, while sony almost invented cross product marketing, thus needs a high install base over actually making profit with one product. It's not that nintendo is more fiscally conservative, every company would be if they could. Nintendo is just one of the few that can allow itself.

Not since 1984.  In the US at least.   You can still sell stock as a way of loss selling, but that's never going to offset your actually losses.  Any way you try to spin it losing money over an extended period of time is a bad thing.  It's not like loss selling is helping Sony anyway as a quick look at their debt will tell you.  Of course bringing up selling losses is a way for you to complicate things.  Don't bring up a simplistic example, then make it more complicated later.  It's a dishonest bit of rhetorical trickery.

no you dont understand they can sell their devisions that make loses

Uhhh they can, but you're not going to make a profit off of those sales.  Whose going to buy a division that's bleeding money unless they're going to get a great deal?

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say.  But, I'll just respond with this.  Companies can do a lot of things.  None of those things are going to change the fact that making money is objectively better than losing money.