You are?

The misconception about me and my motives for saying something negative about MS is that I only say them because I support Sony. 'I love this so therefore I must hate that'. That's not how I am at all. I dislike Microsft because I dislike Microsoft, NOT because I like Sony. So therefore, if Sony does something that I dislike MS for then I'm also going to dislike Sony for doing the same thing. 

Source? I'd like to be able to look over the PNL sheets myself, but they are always locked behind a paywall, or just not publicly available. I mean, how the heck did Sony manage to triple it's net income year over year? It just doesn't make any sense. There's likely some hidden debt, or some other liability that isn't being accounted for. Either that or they are printing money compared to last year. 

I don't think you'll piss off a lot of Sony fans doing that, many would probably agree with you.

Maybe so and hopefully, if Sony start dropping singleplayer experiences in the future, they'll voice their concerns. I have no problem if these new GAAS titles are 'additions' to the lineup but if they 'replace' the lineup, as they have with MS, then I'll be pretty damned annoyed. 

There are more PS+ subs than Switches out there. PSN is gonna make more revenue than Nintendo for a few more years. Even if Nintendo's sub service takes off, the difference will still be huge.

Kudos to Sony then.

As for Nintendo, at least they aren't up to here in debt(which Sony is). In fact they don't owe a cent, and have a lot of money in their cash reserves. This means they can still take loans, there is substantial equity there.

This scenario can be turned around, and it just might eventually. Kimishima is no Iwata, he is far more mercenary.

The issue that I have with this thread is that the sources are not PNL/Balance sheets, so it's easy to move money around, or not take certain liabilities into account.

PSN has an income but almost no operating expenses since the other parts of Sony handle that. So it's easy to just say that PSN makes more money than the entirety of Nintendo, so long as you forget to count actual overall company expenses.

Then there's the fact that Sony doesn't just do games, and Nintendo pretty much just does games. Sony may have a higher net income, but how much of that is gaming related? Did they finally turn their non-gaming divisions around?

People are only looking at income statements, and not things like net income, assets, liabilities, operating expenses,.

Nintendo is worth somewhere around 10 billion dollars, and Sony is only worth somewhere around 22 million. Or at least that's according to last year's PNL/Balance sheets.

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sne/financials?query=balance-sheet

http://financials.morningstar.com/balance-sheet/bs.html?t=NTDOY (This is in millions of JPY, but you get the picture)

But at any rate, I'm glad that both companies are healthy. I almost exclusively play on Sony and Nintendo platforms these days. Without them the most exciting games of this year wouldn't exist. 

P.S. Sony's gaming division had an operating income of around 73 billion yen according to the source provided in the OP. Nintendo had around 40 billion yen in operating income, according to OP's source. Assuming that operating income is net income, Nintendo made around 33 billion yen less than Sony's gaming division. And that's in a console launch year to boot. 

It's pretty simple, actually. Share prices are primarily driven up by good operating incomes and corresponding P/E ratios and brought down by bad debt leverage ratios. Given Sony's issues with other divisions, they're likely getting killed on margins and debt. Growth projections are built in to the price, which is why hitting or missing quarterly estimates cause signifiant, nonlinear changes.

Honestly, people don't really care too much about CFAs, unless there's true novelties therein. I think you were intially referring to revenue and not net income, which is what most non-investors do. In your case, I think it was just a typo, though. You're spot on with operating income, because debt can be serviced in a myriad of ways, and a proftable company will almost always be able to service its debt load.