Microsoft, as a company, has always been about acquisitions. They've done it countless times in the technology sector so it's no surprise that they're doing the same with Xbox. They certainly aren't worrying about what is best for Playstation gamers or gamers as a whole, just what's best for Xbox. They have money and they're going to invest it in ways to benefit the brand. That a particular property started off outside Microsoft makes no difference to them.
As far as exclusivity deals go, there is one thing that consumers desperately need to learn--unless we know the exact terms and provisions written into the contract, we can only make guesses as to what will happen with that game in the future. It doesn't matter if someone said the game is "partially funded" by a console manufacturer. It doesn't matter if the game has been published by a console manufacturer. It doesn't matter what happened with previous games that have been in similar situations. All that matters is what was written into the contract. Pretty much everything we do here is guesswork and speculation, which is fine, but when people pretend that they KNOW something simply based on previous examples, they're really setting themselves up to look silly.
Can a game be "partially funded" by a console maker and still end up multi-platform? Of course, all that means on paper is that one company gave another company money. All that matters is what contractual rights were granted and recorded in exchange for that money.
Can a game be published by a console maker and still end up multi-platform? Of course, it simply depends on the terms of the contract as to what those publication rights entail. You can make the publication period one week, if you wanted, though obviously no one would agree to that.
Some people really need to understand that business agreements are mutable from one situation to another.
