Ah. Using the old "blinded by your fanboyism" strategy. I hope it works out for you better than your other arguments have in this topic. I suppose there was going to come a time you would run out of legitimate material and just start attacking my character, rather than the arguments I've provided. Kudos to you.

Sleep well sir. If you do feel restless tonight because of insomnia, heres a good reading suggestion.

I'm going to make a much shorter post this time, since most of what I would say has already been said by many others. However, I do have to ask a question- are you reading and thinking about what others have said? Judging by the way you keep repeating things, I'm going to say no. You keep trying to put Nintendo as a 3rd party company, to which several people have said that won't happen; Nintendo themselves said it in 2003. link Several others, including myself, have said that Nintendo designs their systems to match their ideas for games. Nintendo's innovation would be severely impacted if they could not shape a system to their ideas. As a 3rd party company, you have a mold you have to fit into. A difference in the mold has been mentioned already: demographics. Nintendo just doesn't fit the Sony or MS mold.

You also said a few other things that are easy to refute. Online is not more important than retail. Yes, companies are pushing to increase the relevance of online sales, but it's moving slowly. Several companies in multiple industries have mentioned that their bread and butter for sales come from traditional retail stores. In the gaming field, does Nintendo sell more stock through Amazon or Best Buy? Does Gamestop sell more through their stores or their website? There are still sufficient enough people who do not have broadband internet, coupled with the desire for physical media, that the retail chains will remain more important than online.

Next, the DS success reasons. I can't dispute your games reason, as that is true. But price? This argument has been done on this site so many times it's not funny. Did Gamecube, the cheapest option last gen, win? That's the relevance price has. As for the dual and touch screen, you really think those didn't help? They were innovations which changed portable gaming, an area Nintendo has had largely unchallenged for 20 years now.

This leads to my next point- you said that Nintendo's size is a disadvantage. I think your view is based off of faulty logic, but I do have to disagree. If anything, I feel the smaller-knit Nintendo allows for better communications, and is advantageous for them. Sure, releasing systems is a risk; but so is releasing games. Let's look at the history of both companies and their consoles, shall we?

Nintendo
Color TV Game: Profitable
NES: Profitable
SNES: Profitable
N64: Profitable
Gamecube: Profitable
Wii: Profitable
Game & Watch: Profitable
Game Boy: Profitable
Game Boy Color: Profitable
Game Boy Advance: Net Profitable (not so sure about the Micro, which Nintendo did say was a mistake)
Virtual Boy: Loss
DS: Profitable
--Nintendo seems to have a good track record, and all current systems are making money.

Sony
PS1: Profitable
PS2: Profitable (though again, I'm not so sure about the PSX part)
PS3: Loss
PSP: Profitable
--Still not too bad, though their loss is a huge one, and on a current gen system. It may turn profit, though admittingly, given Sony's prior gens sales to profit ratio, I doubt it.

So... Sony's also untouchable for making a system that sold 140 million? Funny... all its profits are already gone. It's why I see them as being in bigger trouble than Nintendo, but I don't think they're "doomed", persay, nor do I think they're definitely leaving.

Lastly (this became longer than I wanted), you mentioned something about the inability to have a discussion here. It can be done, you just need to bring some facts to the table, and not be repeating the same beliefs without any proof as to why. I, and many others here, are willing to entertain outside ideas, IF they are properly backed up. From what I have seen, you have only backed up your beliefs with more beliefs. And this is why you are having a problem.

@Onyxmeth

You did attacked me before I said anything about you. You said I were clueless and stubborn.
And now you are the one trying to pretend is a victim.
You also claimed I had to look to Sony with a more critical eye, and now gets sensitive about me saying your admiration to Nintendo is unrealistic.
My arguments can hold itself. As the only opinions I hold as truth is that Sony doing a ps4, which is yet to be rebutted by anyone and nobody discussed the merits of the first part of the topic due to that.

But kudos to you, didn't know about blue ocean was common expression that people other than Nintendo used. English not my first language either so even if were a common expression wouldn't know.

But what do you say to my opinion that Nintendo {could} profit more than it did with gamecube if went 3rd party and handheld. You think is wrong or you think the profit they can make with another console is so much bigger they shouldn't settle for less even with the risk?

Double post

redundant

PS3 has sucked all the profits from 2 gens
they are not making money on each ps3

Nintendo lost money on one console, the virtual boy
They made money out of the box onall there other consoles

You are a outerspace sony fanboy

I'm no victim. I'm merely admiring your new strategy. It's obvious you're running thin on argument material, and this is a nice sideswiping approach.

Also you are clueless about the market, and yes you're very stubborn. Not one person in this topic has even remotely agreed with you, and yet you've heard nothing of the countless counter arguments thrown your way and haven't budged an inch. Sounds pretty damn stubborn to me.

My point about looking at Sony in a more critical eye is that you merely see them as some force that cannot be broken while they are the most fragile of the three competitors because of the shape the company is in as a whole and how the PS3 fits into that, and you see Nintendo as some house of cards just waiting to be knocked over, regardless of their solid decision making and current domination of the market on two fronts.

Your argument about Nintendo cannot hold itself. It breaks under the weight of a feather. You've yet to address what revenue streams Nintendo could employ as a third party to warrant them going in that direction. All I see is a losing scenario for them. All anyone in this topic has seen is a losing scenario for them. You have yet to show the ability to realize Nintendo's software success and hardware success are intertwined, and thus cannot be seperated. Nintendo could not have had a Wii Sports-like success developing it on the 360 or PS3 and you know it. It took the Wii hardware to bring out what was so great about the title, as it took the software to bring out what was so great about the hardware. The symbiotic relationship between the two ties into Nintendo's success and is part of why they are cleaning the clocks of the competition.

Why don't you ask the same question of Sony so you can hear how ridiculous it is? Why should a company that purposely sells consoles at a negative for years at a time, that has already been a successful third party developer, that is bleeding money as a company partially because of their videogame division, is merely following a lazy "me too" approach to motion control, has been unable to make sound business decisions for the last few years in their gaming division, has been unable to proclaim publicly that they undertsand the competition's method of success, has software both suited for Microsoft's console (Killzone, GT, Resistance, Uncharted) and Nintendo's console (LBP, Motorstorm, Ratchet and Clank), why should this company, that couldn't possibly lose more money as a third party publisher as they currently are as a console maker, why should they stay in the hardware business?

If you still say 0% for Sony, then frankly I can't see how it wouldn't be the same for Nintendo.

The profit is obviously more if they keep making consoles. There's no proof Nintendo could sell more software as a third party publisher, so let's assume everything is equal and the exact same amount of software is sold. Let's assume Nintendo makes exactly no profit on a future console, which would be a first for them. Let's assume Nintendo would make zero profit on all hardware accessories, canceling that revenue stream out also. Let's assume a future Virtual Console and WiiWare service would net them zero dollars. Even with all of that, you still have the damn fees they would have to pay other console makers. There are so many negatives, and you've yet to address these alternative revenue streams to make up for them. All you keep spouting is risk. Yes, obviously there's risk, but Nintendo has come out on top every time. Why not again following their most profitable console, and THE most profitable console of all time?

Also I have a new question. Why just consoles? Handhelds are risks also. Why don't they drop that too and just do third party altogether? It doesn't make sense for the #1 console and handheld maker to think one is too big a risk and not the other.

Nintendo is making too much money that they won't know how to spend them so they'll skip "next-gen" completely to spend all their profit on booze and women.