You always point out the so-called inferiority of consoles (except the Wii) to PCs. What is so far ahead on a PC that is not on the 360 or PS3? The main deal with online is the actual gaming, and 360 and PS3 are both embracing it now.

Also, care to elaborate why Wii online is not in the same comparison? Maybe because it doesn't really have much online outside of 2 games, a weather channel and a news channel?

First MMOs are hitting PS3 and 360 next year, Huxley and the Agency being the first two on each of the consoles. So if that is your standard of how successful online is then you'll be satisfied... also don't forget FF XI and Phantasy Star which has been around sinec the Dreamcast... 

It happened on June 28th.

And obviously things can turn. You can say that at any time, about any company. Right now, Nintendo is about 5 percent bigger than the entirety of Sony.

And this assumes that they do nothing with their money. Miyamato makes a workman's salary; no one is allowed to fly first class in the company; Iwata skips hotel trips as often as possible on press trips. They aren't using the money to roll around in, so logically the money will be invested. 

If Nintendo was handing out huge, luxurious rewards to their employees, I'd understand your point, but they don't. Having more money means you have more to spend on your consumers in the future. 

Things can change as in companies go up and down.

If you only take market value as the measure of how big a company is then yes technically right now Nintendo is bigger than Sony.

Also they wouldn't spend a lot more on their consumers if they are trying to be as cost effective as they have been.

"What is so far ahead on a PC that is not on the 360 or PS3?"

Do not answer that.

Crysis and online gaming, obviously. Steam alone is more than twice as large as the entirety of the much-lauded Xbox live, let alone adding in the unique users who play Unreal Tournament, Starcraft, World of Warcraft... I'd say the online market for PCs is (conservatively) 3 times as large as the console market, and this despite a smaller market.

How can you possibly suggest the PC is NOT superior? High end PCs have superior horsepower, and Crysis can only be run on the PC. The online network the PC offers is enormously more developed than that for any console. Almost every professional game is played on the PC, not on a console. I'm not for one minute arguing that 360/PS3 aren't worth getting for those who enjoy the games on the systems -- if you personally prefer the games on the 360/PS3, please, enjoy. That's absolutely fine. But don't try to argue that the platforms are technologically equivalent to high end PCs, because it's obviously false, and the gap between the two will continue to grow over time.

You're confusing "which console is more fun" with "which console is technologically superior." Again, for emphasis, for the umpteenth time -- I absolutely agree that you should get a PS3 or 360 if you think the games on those systems are more fun. I think a lot of people agree with you -- the majority, perhaps -- that consoles simply have more to offer for an enjoyable experience. But are these consoles technologically equivalent to high end PCs for gaming? No. There are already games in development that they can't handle on high settings. That doesn't make these consoles bad, by any means -- they're technologically inferior, but not necessarily inferior entertainment.

And I'd be happy to elaborate about the Wii. The Wii doesn't even attempt to do the same things as a PC: it doesn't have multimedia capabilities, its online capabilities are reduced and streamlined, its graphics aren't trying to compete, and so forth. Several notable developers, including Gabe Newell and John Romero (who is now more or less marginalized), both said that they believed that systems like the PS3 and 360 are poorly marketed, simply because they're so much like PCs, but slightly worse. By contrast, the Wii is doing something very different, and can find its own space.

Right, I understood what you were saying. Things change. And again: that's true for any company at any time. Heck, the Bank of London, the second largest bank in the world, went bankrupt in the late 90s.

Right now, Nintendo is a larger company than the entirety of Sony.

Obviously Nintendo would spend on their consumers. Where do you expect this money to go Ck? I mean that honestly. They're raking in billions of dollars, while Sony and Microsoft lose billions. How would that money not ultimately be used on the consumer? What other purpose could it possibly serve? 

Exactly, the money will be reinvested in big game development right away.  There is a reason Nintendo is the best selling software company in the world.  They will be right back into games.  Some will go into developing the new DS (to be released in 3 years or so), some will go into the new Wii (expect development to start on this next year, and be released 3 years or so after that), but most of it will go into software development.  Do you have any idea how much money Nintendo spends making their games?  The amount of cash that's been poored into SSBB to hire on the best development team and composers is insane.

I agree, Naz, but I'm still just a little confused by all of this. Let's take a simple example.

Let's say Nintendo has made 1 billion dollars in profits this year. Simple, easy, number. They did this by being conservative and careful with their money -- or cheap, if you'd prefer.

Okay, so they have a billion dollars from being cheap. Now, what happens to that money? What do we imagine Nintendo will do with the money, exactly, if not reinvest the money back in to their company's infrastructure, be it development of new hardware, software, or something else?

I'm really not trying to be cheeky here, I just... I just don't understand what we are expecting. If Nintendo was running to the bank with their money, giving their CEOs huge paychecks and spending lavishly on their employees, sure, I'd agree that the money is being wasted, but that's precisely what we just agreed is not happening. Nintendo is conservative with their money, remember? That's what started this whole conversation. When a company makes money, that money is ultimately spent and reinvested into the company (Again, unless they're embezzling, which is what we've all agreed Nintendo is NOT doing). 

Well, Nintendo is a lot smaller yet is worth more money... Ouch. 

Well Nintendo isn't cheap on development.  They make systems that can be PRODUCED cheap, that doesn't mean they don't spend money developing those systems.  Their software development especially isn't conservative.  Nintendo poors cash into their games.  Metroid Prime, SMG, and SSBB are having a lot of money spent on their development.  They pay for assisted development on games too (Golden Sun for example).  They pay tons of money to advertise.  I can't think of a single TV channel I watch that doesn't play Wii comercials.  They produce cheap, they don't develop cheap.  This is a misconception that develops due to the fact that they always sell their consoles at a profit.