I think there is substantial naivety on both sides of this argument - not aided by Phil using the words "nothing to do with" - which was ill-advised.
Marketshare will have an impact on the ability to procure exclusives. But as we saw last generation, this impact is often exaggerated. The PS4 is outselling Xbox One comfortably, but a lot of Xbox's are still being sold - particularly in a America.
Anyone who thinks its ever 'cheap' for Sony to procure a third party exclusive of any major significance (especially an established franchise) is probably deluding themselves. Whilst its probably more expensive for MS to do the same, we'd likely find the difference is more marginal than many assume. Just as, if not more important, would be the presumed ability to market and provide focus to a product, assistance with development, and the role of an exclusive in a console's line up.
For example, a lot of people have mentioned Tomb Raider. Phil has actually touched on this previously. PS4 will have Uncharted, which for a lot of PS4 owners will crush interest in Tomb Raider. SE clearly needed financial assistance to bring Tomb Raider to market. When they went looking for assistance, it was likely clear to them that just as great a market, if not a greater one, would exist on the Xbox One than the PS4 - where no comparative exclusive exists. Their thinking may have changed since UC4 got delayed, I don't know. But this is a circumstance where MS could theoretically been able to offer less money than Sony for the same exclusive, marketshare aside.
There would be examples on the other side as well of course. MS has an established fighter in Killer Instinct, and Sony has a stronger history with fighters - making SF4 likely cheaper to procure for Sony than it would have been for MS.
starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS
