>They control it, they constrict it -- how would you describe it?

They buy an undervalued commodity and resell it at its "true" market value. They hardly restrict the supply: if they fail to get rid of their inventory, then that becomes a loss for them.

>It's not an open market

It is an open market, anyone is free to trade the commodity. When you have a centralized entity limiting who can trade and enforcing price controls, that's when the market is no longer free.

>it's been/being manipulated (trivially, apparently) by the scalpers to suit their ends.

How is it manipulation? They're just buying and reselling a commodity. Are you implying that the people buying from scalpers are being manipulated into making an uninformed business decision? I think the people buying from scalpers understand what they are doing, regardless of how it might anger you that you've been priced out of the market.

It's truly a free market. If the consumers decided that the value of the commodity is less than or equal to MSRP, then no one will buy from scalpers. The traders bear the costs of redistribution and the risk associated with keeping their inventory, so they would certainly lose money in that case.

It's ultimately the consumers that decide to enable scalping, the consumers decide for themselves how valuable the commodity is.

>What is the true value that the people are ignorant of? Why do you think there is such a discrepancy?

As the other commenters here have discussed, the price at which the manufacturer is selling at is misaligned with the supply/demand equilibrium for their commodity. Why? because the assumption is that a higher MSRP will anger their long-standing customers. So the manufacturer is forced to act ignorant to the forces at play (by people like you I suspect, who try to ascribe "morality" to the actions of individuals at the expense of the bigger picture).

This current environment creates a system of adverse incentives which profits the trader at the expense of the manufacturer. If the manufacturer increased prices, they could put some of that capital towards increasing production capacity, they could spend that capital on R&D, they could use that money to subsidize the entry cost for future consoles. Those are all things that and ultimately help the consumer as opposed to some weird third party who has to step in and stabilize the market.

>How is "making a quick buck" by conning the ignorant morally justifiable? How does it add value to society?

Traders propagate price signals and cushion volatility. They usually do so at a significant risk in return for razor-thin profits, because the value they add is usually low. It's only in cases of extraordinary mass ignorance that traders can profit so much by doing so little.

One might also ask how a fox "making a quick meal" out of a rabbit benefits the system of nature. The forces of nature care not of the woes of an individual, nor do the forces of the free market. Just as predators regulate the population of prey within nature, traders regulate the price signals of producers within society.

>What is all this anger for?

This is the type of reasoning that ultimately enables the dysfunctional forms of communism. It all goes back one's willingness to moralize over the actions of individuals without respect for the larger incentives at play.