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.

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 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.

We have to differ because Sony did not "listen to consumers".  Instead they listened to their profits and revenue.  Nothing Sony has done was in the interest of consumers unless it has a positive impact on profit and revenue.  Out of desperation and competition, Sony changed for the better but to continue to think it was becausde of consumers really miss how huge corporations like Sony work.

You see a distinction here. I'm saying it the same thing. Valuing consumers is with the intent of profits and revenue. Therefore, keeping the consumer happy was an investment, regardless of the short term profit. Taking down the PSN after the hack and repairing it costs millions. Instead, Sony could've swept it under the rug.

Microsoft is more intrested in direct profits then in investing in the consumers, which is clearly evident in the process of adding ads to Xbox Live.

It makes a big difference if a company is on top and make changes that benefit customers instead of when they are on the bottom and must make those changes to survive.  It means once they gain the top again, then old business practices come back (which I have already seen a few happening).

No, it only makes a difference if you have some sort of misplaced moral obligation to how these companies operate. As a consumer, my only real concern about the stablity of a company is whether or not they can continue there quality of service. Any thing else is meaningless.

@Bolded:  Did you not critize MS for trying to do the same thing???

You need to elaborate here, Consumers should not cater to MS, Sony, Nintendo, or any of the other companies. I do not care what Microsoft's vision was when entering the gaming industry was or is. As long as they are here, there only purpose is to provide me (the consumer) with excellent service, anything else is extraneous, and if they are conflicting with this purpose then they are in the wrong.

On your last point, MS already lost a couple billion and they have changed their tone, polices and practices.  In other words, MS and Sony are no different.  Desperation and competition make corporations change their tune not customers.  When either is on top, the last thing either think about is customer satisfaction over company objectives.

Like I said many times before, I do not care how much MS loses or has lost. What they are doing now is not satisfactory.If Sony and MS were in the same fiscal position, then I would expect them to be equal in terms of quality service. But they are not, even in objective terms at the most base price point with just basic skus, PS4 offers more even if they were at the same price. To add insult to injury, MS is basically in the green and Sony has been in the red for about a decade. How in the hell is MS, not outdoing Sony?

When Xbox announced DRM, Always On, Kinect Pack In, 499 USD, etc... I didn't even look up from my Sunday Newspaper. If you really believe MS has "changed" you're naive. The fact that they waited till preorders to change policies despite the E3 backlash, are still requiring the Kinect despjte making it optional, and practically the entire last generation is evidence enough for me to see through their lies.

So you believe that Sony is charging for MP like MS does for live because MS is doing it.  This is a very narrow view of why Sony is charging for MP.  Sony is charging for MP because they understood like MS that its the single most direct course to have consumers pay for a service.  

There is a lot of double standards in your statements.  You seem to easily dismiss when Sony does something anti-consumer and then push the blame to their competitor.  Thats like my Son sees his friend hit someone and he goes and does the same thing.  So how many other policies that are anti-consumer that Sony does that you are willing to pass the buck to their competitor for either doing it first or just doing it.

How did I miss this one?

@italics: Exactly, they learned it from MS, because Sony realized that consumers would pay for PSN because of XBL. Because of MS, I have to pay a subscription to play multiplayer on my PS4. Its stands to reason that if XBL wasn't more profitable then PSN, PSN would remain to be free because it makes more fiscal sense for it to be free. Ask me why.

Care to give an example of the bolded?

Never said that and that wasn't the point at all. I commend MS for securing the 1st game, and 3rd party exclusives in general like Ryse and Dead Rising 3. The point I was making was that Sony isn't on that level of 3rd party commitment and MS's effort deserves credit.