If Nintendo became the monopoly console it would be bad for everyone including Nintendo fans who seem to be dreaming of this.

It ain't happening.

 Any company in monopoly situation is nothing but trouble. Look where Sony is now after the case with PS2 (It WAS monopoly people). I am a gamer who dislikes no company and/or product nor do I want anyone to dominate. It should be the same with everyone. Sony and Nintendo fanboys are nothing but. Microsoft fanboys are a little less zealous.

#1. That pic is old and I haven't had the chance to change/update it. I chose it because theres no other next-gen system to have such a yoy increase outside of DS in 05-06, but I like the smaller numbers.

 #2. Microsoft and Sony are in the video game market to make cash via video games, yes, but their presence in the market allows them to make money not in just video games. Sony makes cash via BR-DVD sales, and helps promote the format making them cash. Microsoft makes money via live anywhere, and their other intenet-based solutions, these are 2 areas both MS and Sony are focusing on that are very important to them outside of just hardware and software sales. Nintendo has nothing of the sorts. If their video game sales were in the red, the company would be doing very bad.

#3. Sony and MS lose money in the video game business. If Nintendo lost $4b dollars like Xbox did, would Nintendo go bankrupt? Answer that question for me. Don't give me the "they'd never lose that much". Just answer me. Would they go bankrupt if the posted $4b in losses over 2-3 years? The advantage that MS and Sony have, as major corporations, they have their eggs spread in many baskets, therefore the gaming divisions can lose money here and there if they are serving the corporation in way(s) that help them out overall.

 #4. We have 5-6 years to go before we see if it pays off. Your and my views are just opinions, but we'll see if BR sells billions of disks, or not. I bet it will, however.

#5. From a profit-wise? Not as far as their gaming divisions go. But, if they were truely doing poorly for the corporations, they'd ax their gaming divisions without thinking. As a gamer, I do enjoy MS and Sony's videogames, so their losses still work for me, as I get higher quality gaming at the same price :)

1. I agree, and thats exactly why the X360 and PS3 are failing. I've stated, and advocated a X360 pricedrop since November last year for Gears of War, because the X360 is failing vs. the Wii due to mass market pricing. For the PS3, it's the same thing as the 360, but at a much higher level, as it's pricetag keeps only the most hardcore and wealthiest gamers to buy the systems. However, to maintain profitability, MS/Sony have realized that in order to continue being loss leaders @ launch, they need ways to get more cash via DLC and other online ventures.

2. Again, I agree that Sony has made just about the biggest gamble in gaming history. I never said what they've done was smart or right, as like you've said, they've nearly lost their entire PS2 profits by blundering the PS3 design. IMO, Sony would be FAR better off of they'd of lowered Cell/RSX specs and launched the PS3 at $500 w/o such a huge cost for the mobo (the mobo alone is $300 as of isuppli's estimations, whereas the BR-DVD is less than half of that, and has rapidly reduced in price). Again, Sony could make billions via BR licensing, and justify the PS3 strategy, but for me, that was too risky with the uber-specs of the PS3.

3. H&E is still in the red, but they have actually made profits before. When H2 launched, H&E posted a $100m profit. I agree that the H&E is a stop-gap to prevent PS3 from dominating a set-top box (which is what Sony is trying to do, as MS forsaw). Eventually though, H&E will become profitable.

4. During the PS1/2 dominance, Nintendo did end up doing very poorly vs. their current and former years. During GC launch and such, profits were only around $200m yearly (versus around 500+ now). Nintendo knows how to make money, because games are their business - just like Sony knows how to make cash on TVs, and MS on OSes.

5. Prove to me that MS is actually losing cash on just XBL. If Nintendo was all about the gaming experience, why not give a better online system?

6. I know that they aren't being loss leaders for any reason outside of selling more units. But as a consumer, I don't mind getting better systems for cheaper :)

7. If Sony left (which I doubt they will), then MS will force their gaming division to become profitable, and fight head to head with Nintendo. Even if they aren't in the market still to fight Sony, they will find another viable reason to fight.

About the monopoly issue, I don't think many people actually want that situation to arise, but it is a fact that the losses by both companies are unsustainable if they continue without borrowing money from unrelated divisions (a luxury Nintendo doesn't have) and they will quit eventually Sega-style if they don't think they'll ever make a profit.

If Nintendo were to suddenly find themselves the sole major company in the console market, there would always be new players: remember, Microsoft and Sony were never in the console market until 2001 and 1994 respectively so there would always be suprise entrants. 

No, the other side to this is you'd have to buy a high-end($4000) PC to play the latest and geatest games(by which I mean physics , AI, and graphics) If this happens, I for one will cease to be a console gamer.

What is with all these people saying Monopoly would be bad for Nintendo? I personally remember playing that on my NES and loving every minute of it. :-p

uhhh, Sega?

btw, no one said bad for nintendo, ANY monopoly is bad for the consumer, just look at the crap Vista OS that MS just dumped on the market.

Yup. Too much power means the company gets arrogant. That is what happened to Nintendo on their third console, and that is what is happening to Sony on their third console.