See that is where we must respectively disagree. The very nature of this entertainment medium prevents me from giving this any truly serious thought. Sure I love debating with people here as I am passionate about this and it helps the day go by, but I won't let a corporations likability get in the way of playing games that interest me.

A hobby by nature is something you do at your leisure and gives you pleasure. I won't treat it with the same seriousness as people protesting food companies with their food safety procedures, slaughterhouses and their animal treatment, Power companies and their nature conservation polocies while extracting oil, etc.

Granted this means that if I am dispelased with a console company, then it just means they get less of my money, but will buy the games I want regardless of how I think of them.

What you want to be when making a decision about such things is "Objective"

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: anobjective opinion.

You can have an opinion and still be objective. I don't just harbor some ill will towards a company I never worked for for some ethereal reason. I weigh pros and cons of everything and came to a conclusion. I am told I am a bit overly logical in this sense. 2 is always gong to be greater than 1, not I "feel" that 2 is.  logically, one is just so much better for the average person's money. 

There are more opinion based questions to be asked, such as what games/series a person likes, what features you are looking for, etc.Still, PS3 had more 70+ range titles and with far more acclaim, PSN is actually quite competent in comparison to Live, its silly media bias that has so many beleiving one is vastly superior. Once people figure out that the new Dashboard was a green version of the PS3's XMB just in the opposite direction, Or how bad connection has less to do with the console and more to do with your area, or how PS3 was only missing 2 features Xbox360 had(gamertag change, cross game chat) , mindshare could change. Yet excluding these claims, which only make up about 1/3rd of the over all gaming experience pie, it only leans one way.

Its like when I am at work, and a person comes and asks to get ItemX, and I say "hey, itemX costs you $20 but for the same price you can get itemXY which comes with itemX for just $20s as well". Then the customer just shrugs me off. "No, I'll just stick to itemX, I'm just used to it".

This type of thing confounds me to no end. How can you NOT choose the second option when its obviously the superior one? In general, I think its the fear of wanting to admit you made a poor decision or not being properly informed that creates this. The MS situation is a lot more complex of course but its pretty similar. People who don't want to think about the disparity become immediately dismissive of this logic argument and just yell they want to be left alone in their bubble.

What I do not understand is why people choose the parts they like and forget the rest. Sony by nature is no better of a corporation than MS. Hell Even Nintendo have their moments where they push their corporate influence more than customer wants or desires.

Only recently have Sony learned some valued education and are taking a more open approach unlike their years during the beginning of the PS3. Humble pie always make a company reevaluate their approach to a market. The results we see from Sony today is not because of love for consumers, its because competition, losses has forced Sony to do better.

Actually you only have to go back in the past for any of these corporations and see how they acted during the time they were on top. When any company is on top, their sol purpose at that point is to stay on top by any means necessary. As soon as any of them find themselves at or near the bottom you see all kind of changes that seem consumer centric but instead is geared to win back mindshare and support.

The moment a fanboy stop looking at a corporation through rose colored glasses and realize that all the corporations play the same game is when you grow up.

Yes, all companies have been guilty of it at one point or another, but I don't condone feeding into any of their bad practices, whether is Sony,MS,Nintendo,Walmart,Google, etc.

For instance, I believe Sony and MS purposely left out the ability to play MP3 and Video files on their system's directly in order to more easily persuade consumers to a streamed/digital DRM future, under the guise "We didn't know many people cared for that feature". I have been vocal of my opposition to this in many threads up here. This particular thread just has a more specific topic.

Its less so one is saintly, the other devilish, it is "Which is the lesser Evil?" And one is assuredly less evil...

See that's it; being utterly convinced that your opinion is right and everything else is wrong. Not taking into account peoples tastes and what they want from a console.

Again, 360 excelled at XBLA, its flagship exclusives, and Xbox Live (playing online, community features). To a lesser extent better multiplats and multiplats not on PS3 for those that aren't PC gamers. That was what people wanted and that is why 360 did as well as it did. If anyone is in a bubble it is you, thinking no other opinion can be right.

I counter this point by saying that Sony had absolutly no choice.  Sony went into the PS3 gen with a whole lot of confidence.  They started to eat and continued to eat a whole lot of humble pie during that generation.  Lost billions which made it even worst since the company other products were not selling as well.

On your last point about Yoshida making tweets and videos against their competitor and the competitor does nothing about it, you should ask yourself why.  Go back in time and look at other companies that did the same thing.  Case in point would be Pepsi vs Coke.  Notice that Coke never made any commercial about Pepsi but thats all Pepsi did was make comercials about Coke.  

The reason is because its a position of weakness.  When you are spending time trying to bring down your competitior instead of bringing up your own product, you show a weakness in your commitment to the value of your product.  When a competitor is on top, they do not waste money promoting their competitor.  Instead they will spend that mony to promote their products further.  to mention your competitor is to show weakness in the market thus giving them cred.

Allow me to be perfectly clear. I'm not concerned Xbox, their games, or their anticonsumer practices. I don't even care whether or not you support them with cash or personally have no problems with their bullshit.

What I do have issue with is your advocacy of their bullshit stemming from some misplaced sense of unity and community that orginally was shared between all members of the community. I don't care if you take it seriously or not, but I personally value the time, money, and commitment that I've put into this hobby because I value myself, and when I see a threat to it, thats when I take offense. And this advocacy of BS is a threat to gaming.

It is actively ruining my hobby.

People like to talk about how competition is good for the industry, but they fail to see the negatives that can become just as serious.

If XB1 got away with DRM then console gaming would be utterly ruined. And people like you would've let it happen.

So go on ahead, defend this bullshit, I will be right behind you calling it out.

Hopefully, this time Consumers are smart enough to realize this sh1t.

Well if X1 got away with DRM then PS4 would have won by even bigger margins then now. In the end consumers decide where the market goes. But issues like release parity are really not game changer polocies. They really aren't.

Its not about Sony, its about Microsoft. The PS4 didn't bring down the Xbox 1, its just one side actually listened to consumers. And so what if Sony had no choice. That's good. Since when did consumers care about how dominant their platform of choice is and not be concerned about the games. Pardon me, If I fail to see how cater to a company is better than them catering to me.

If MS has to lose a couple billions of dollars to get their act together, so be it. They need to learn that consumers run the industry, not the companies.

There is a difference between responding to consumer demands and "getting away with it". The latter suggests that the penalties were either miniscule or non-existant. If XB1 got away with DRM, the Sony would follow suit to compete, and possibly even Nintendo. Just like Sony added a fee for Multiplayer because XB has been doing it for the past decade.

As for release time parity, thats only the beginning, pretty soon it will be quality parity, and then xbox will be truly holding back development. That's why the day that Xbox gets and hold majority marketshare in the console realm, the day that Console gaming will truly be d00med, unless of course the stop acting like pricks. Consumers are smart, but it would be foolish to place your trust in them, I hope that they teach MS a lesson this gen and if anything the DRM fiasco was a good sign, but I won't rest easy till I see real mainstream movement.