Interested to see what next year holds. Launch Animal Crossing and Pokemon on Switch with vast interest to the masses and perhaps a decent 3D animation movie of Mario in theaters? I believe it is time for me to pick up the first Super Mario Bros. movie.

For a company that only does video game software and hardware, that's pretty impressive.

Nintendo:

Small indie company struggling to supply Nes and Snes classic.

They sat on that Wii money throughout the Wii U and never did anything too risky; that "don't sell at a loss" (or at the very least keep the losses very minimal) philosophy can get in the way of greater sales at times, but it sure has served them well overall.

When considering that they're almost exclusively a video game company and that until the Switch two of their previous three consoles (Gamecube and Wii U) had sold quite poorly, it's an impressive feat.

PSN alone makes more money than all of Nintendo.

What?  No.  People are overvaluing what this means.  Many companies reinvest their profits and diversify their interests.  Amazon, for example, has long emphasized growth and revenue over profitability.  They opt to increase their holdings rather than accumulate cash.

This isn't like a person becoming "rich".  Cash on hand is rarely the goal of a business.  From the source article (google translated) - "On the other hand, I am not simply rejoicing that net cash is accumulated. It is because there are views that it is holding back cash on hand in the sense of investment for growth and return to shareholders. Because financials are sound, everything is not all right."

What this basically means is that Nintendo doesn't spend.  They'd rather put money in the bank rather than become a more powerful or multi-dimensional company.  There are, of course, positives and negatives to that approach.  To each their own business philosophy but that also means direct comparisons don't make much sense.

On a personal level, I think it would bug me a bit, if I were a fan, that Nintendo often falls behind industry standards.  They have enough money to spent that such lapses should never happen.  

That's revenue, not profit buddy. They generate more but that doesn't necessarily mean it profits more. And this will indeed be a moot point by next year when Nintendo is charging for online just like Sony has been doing. But I don't even think this thread is about that, Nintendo is worth more than Sony, it has been that way for a few years now. So "making money" in the case that matters is the money that goes back into your pocket. 

You should contact all the sites that ran these stories from 2016 and 2017 and have them correct their headlines.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=psn+makes+more+than+all+of+nintendo&rlz=1C1NHXL_enCA684CA684&oq=ps&aqs=chrome.4.69i60j69i59j69i60l2j69i59j69i65.2504j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

If you're talking about market cap, Sony has been generally ahead of Nintendo.  Nintendo has had spikes that put them above Sony but they're usually temporary.  They're two different types of companies so that's really apples and oranges, though, and mainly a number for investment purposes.  In terms of assets value, obviously Sony holds billions more in value.  Nintendo clearly has more cash on hand but, again, that's not really a business goal unto itself.  

Traditionally, they've both had different principles.  Nintendo has always valued profit above all while Sony has always been willing to sacrifice profit for the sake of growth.  As I said before, there are negatives and positives for each and they've both experienced the full range.

There really isn't much value in comparing Sony and Nintendo.