Resident_Hazard said:
Replying to the red: Nintendo's Net Income: $1.4 billion
Sony's Net Income: $1.071 billion
Microsoft's Net Income: $14.06 billion Nintendo's Revenue: $7.8 billion
Sony's Revenue: $76.201 billion
Microsoft's Revenue: $51.12 billion These are based on 2006~2007 figures, and while Nintendo is ever so slightly more profitable, because they are effecient with the technology they sell, Sony is a much, much richer company. The revenue is the number to pay attention to. That's money Sony has to throw around. Sony's revenue is a lot higher, because they sell more products, but what counts is the profit on that revenue. Sure revenue is important, but useless if it's doesn't result in profit. Nintendo has 1.4 times Sony's profit with 1/10 th of the revenue. This means Nintendo is less vulnerable to revenue drop. You say Sony is richer because of the revenue. That's wrong. They recieve more money, but most of it dissapears to costs. Also: Nintendo employees: 3,586
Sony employees: 163,000
Microsoft employees: 79,000 Based entirely on the number of employees, Sony is the bigger, richer company--they have to be--in order to employ that many more people. The only thing I was wrong on was MS being bigger than Sony, looks like Sony really is the major player in the video game industry these days. The most employees, most money, and they have their hands in all sorts of tech stuff. Nintendo is the smallest company in the console game, by a long shot. Microsoft has the highest income (wow), but Sony is all-around the bigger company. Employee number is certainly not a good indication on the size of a company. Profit per employee is a much more valuable number, because this rates the productivity of each employee. Nintendo wins this one hands down, also on revenue per employee. Stock prices only indicate a company's current value, not it's size.
Income over a couple quarters does not indicate a company's size, either. A companies value is the only thing that really counts if you want to determine the size of a company, as been stated before, if I want 1% of Sony (including all their employees etc.) it will cost me less money than if I want 1% of Nintendo. 1% of Microsoft will cost me even more. The quaterly results I stated where the ones I could find quickest. I'm aware that Sony used to be the bigger company. Stock market value is based on everything, including the IP's, which are very important for Nintendo. Nintendo's net profit is higher, most likely due to the fact that they are selling far fewer products: Mostly the Wii and DS, both of which are sold above cost, so Nintendo rakes in profit from them and software. Sony, however, is losing money on the PS3 (a lot of money), and sells the PS2, PSP (estimating) at roughly the cost of production, while the PS3 is sold well below. I would call this a bad business model, not an indication for Sony being the bigger company. On top of which, they finally won the HD war, which was no doubt costing them an arm and a leg with all the special deals and Blu-Ray movies that were practically given away to sell the product. Remember, Wal-Mart had a "Buy a PS3 get 10 movies free" sale and that no doubt cost Sony a pretty penny. On top of which, UMD movies essentially flopped for the PSP. Sony also spends more money on advertising that Nintendo does because Sony has a lot more products to advertise, and PS3 or PSP commercials seem more common on TV than those of the Wii or DS. ??? So because Sony advertises more it's normal to have lower profit???? They advertise to make bigger profits. Sony is a much bigger company. Much less effecient than Nintendo, but bigger still. Sony may have a slightly smaller Net Income, but Sony also spends a helluva lot more money than Nintendo--because they have that much to spend. So again: No, Nintendo is the bigger company. Value is the most common determination of the size of a company. | 
