I'm sure there will be those who still complain about policies that were never even implemented.

Microsoft is slowly winning me over with the Xbox One.

yet the vita sold at a loss, doesnt seem so greedy. how about this company. their gaming controller uses AA batteries so 1) production costs are less 2) people would buy a battery pack after buying the controller. also that controller is only compatible with certain headphones, so 1) consumers need to buy an completely new headset 2) consumers buy an adapter. thats 4 examples with just one controller. company A while sounds greedy, but certainly company B sounds much worse

Selling a product at a loss because your costs exceed the price the market is willing to pay doesn't make the company less greedy, it makes them foolish for designing a product that can't be built to sell into the marketplace at a reasonable price.  If Sony could mark the up Vita another $100 and sell them, they would.  The market won't let them.  Soon enough, we will see if the market will let M$ sell the XBone for $500 too.

Your example of M$'s controller is legit though.  I do think that it makes some sense. This was a big debate back in 2006.   M$ studied gamers habits and came to the conclusion that gamers prefer to swap the powerpacks out instead of hooking up cords to play when the battery died.  So, they have gone to that format in their design in both the 360 and the XBone.  With most decisions of design, you have trade offs.  Either you make the rechargeable battery internal and go against what your buyers(not necessarily the PS buyers) want or do you offer them the feature they asked you for.   Either way, the cost is there for the buyer to decide if it matters to them.  Does M$ make more money from this?  Of course they do.  Every option on any item you purchase cost you money.  If you want the shiny rims it cost more.  Some people think the shiny rims look better and some don't.

I really think Microsoft has made great strides and has mostly fixed all of the problems that the Xbox One was going to have. Now they have a very similar console to Sony in terms policies also not to far off in terms of power too. All they have to do is work on the value aspect by introducing a non Kinect bundle.

How can I say... Well..."We tried to f..k you on first date but as it didn't go as expected, let's say that nothing happened ok ?"

Here's what I think of this gigantic mess

HUH?

Steam took a product pc games that were traditionally sold on physical media cd/dvd

and made it digital with DRM...offering lower prices then the physical copy...now everyone sells pc games via digital with some sort of drm

if your counter argument is going to be...pc games were only licenses to play the game in the first place...the same can be said about console games all you do is buy a license to play the game you never acutually own it.

However, you can trade in your physical console game copy to ebgames for below market value or resell it yourself on amazon...ebay...craigslist for market rate.

So, I don't care about reselling console games ussually the trade in value is nothing or it takes to much time and effort to resell at market value...basically diminishing returns...

I'm not sure I get your argument or point

Company shows unprofessionalism and do not believe in their product ... screw them

Are we talking Xbox 360 or Xbox One?  Because for Xbox One

1) Uses AA batteries so production costs are less.  No argument here.

2) People would buy a battery pack after buying a controller--optional.  They could already have rechargeable batteries on stanby like I already do for the Wii and Xbox 360.  No guarantee that Microsoft will make money from the purchase of a Charge and Play set or AA battery sales.

3) Only comptible with certain headphones--but the headphones come packed with the console so... yeah.  Also, from what I've read, the new console features much more improved audio than the last so a new standard has been implemented.  The old headset isn't good enough anymore.  There's also Kinect 2.0 so you don't need a headset at all if you don't want.

4) Consumers buy an adapter--but in the recent video, they are allowing the controller to connect to the console via mini-USB cables. I have plenty of those on hand from my PS3 or Wii U Pro Controller.  I'm good there and even if I weren't, there's no guarantee that Microsoft would make money from the cord, either.  And if you mean an adapter to charge the battery pack, those are normally sold with the battery so, instead of a fourth example, this would tie in with example #2.

Company B doesn't sound so bad now, does it?

Dude, are you fucking serious? The DRM bullshit came from Microsoft, not 3rd parties, we know this for a fact. Why are you still defending Microsoft and accusing 3rd parties? MS is the platform holder, not EA or Ubisoft, MS decides what policies they have on their platform. The 180 afterwards wasn't done by 3rd parties. If what you say was true then Sony would've been surely blackmailed by 3rd parties, threathening Sony not to put multiplats on PS4 if they didnt do as 3rd parties dictated. Do you realize how ridicilous this sounds?

Always online, used games blocking were all Microsofts(don mattrick) bullshit.