1) There is nothing wrong with building recognition and a userbase. Putting a "Only on Xbox" logo on the box of a game that is exclusive for a brief period of time is misleading and dishonest. Their aim in buying up exclusives for a certain period is a sort of temporary differentiation. Nintendo and Sony spend money funding their own IPs and first party studios to produce games that will never leave their platforms. Microsoft does this as well, but in buying temporary exclusivity their aim is not to create compelling exclusive content, but the illusion that they are the only place to play that content.

2) Saying it's "just business" is such a copout. Microsoft doesn't do this to benefit their existing customers, but rather to deprive others of it or create artificial differentiation between them and the competition. Someone who already owns an x360 gains no benefit from a game not appearing on ps3, pc or wii. Like I said above, instead of funding or otherwise ensuring games that will never leave the platform, they want those without a system to think timed exclusive games are actual exclusive games. Microsoft is deliberately decieving those looking to buy a console and who want to HONESTLY compare what is available / what will be available for the console. It's absolutely an anti-consumer tactic.

3) I won't argue that Microsoft has more significance in the industry than before, but how you tie this point to timed exclusives is haphazard at best. Please clarify.

4) Of course businesses are here to make money. While their motive is profit, I would say Sony is doing a better job of securing actual exclusive content and listening to their customers. Microsoft entered this generation a year early in an attempt to beat competitors to the punch, cutting corners in hardware design in the process. That was a "business" decision but it doesn't mean that those who experience RROD or who are wary of unreliable hardware have to put up with it because Microsoft is out to make money. Same goes for Sony cutting ps2 playback in the ps3.

5) When Sony (or whoever) buys a company, they are actually funding and taking a risk in creating new games and content. While Microsoft did (I think) fund the GTA DLC, the focus with buying companies or funding new games is to produce original content that differentiates one system from another. Microsoft tries to sidestep this with timed exclusives. Of course to the casual observer this sort of thing is fair game, and it works. Someone who wants to buy a system compares what is available for each system, and buys the console with the most features/games/whatever they're looking for. Since at any given time Microsoft has a number of games that appear to be exclusive, there is a benefit they get from it. Doesn't mean I have to like it or defend their actions.

edit: I think I fixed the formatting now.

1. So what if MS wants to build themselves as a gaming platform instead of a developer? Is there really something wrong with that? I think it's better that way, keep things seperate. All of those Sony companies can only make for Sony's platform. This is a little extreme, but what if everything were 1st party? Would that be a better situation to you?

2. Why is that a copout? They're all businesses. At the end of the day they have to be profitable, whatever they do to do it, that's all that matters to them. Otherwise, the company (or at least a division of that company) will cease to be. They don't compete over how many customers they have, or who is the 'nicer' business to deal with. It's all about the money.

3. I think the OP's idea is interesting; I don't think it's that 'haphazard'.

4. And rushing development was a mistake. They know that, they have acknowledged that. How long until you forget about that? 10 years? 50? They've fixed RRoD in their newer consoles, and they extended their warranty to cover for their past consoles. I think that's as much as any company should do.

5. Why should a platform developer take that kind of risk? Is that some kind of strange requirement in your head for a good gaming platform company? There are already SOOOO many games out there, too many to fully play all of them, and you want MORE made? Not to mention, I'm not a big fan of Sony's first party. Uncharted 1 and 2 are essentially just 2 $60 movies with mediocre gunplay, and good platforming, if a bit simple/easy. How long has GT5 been in the making? 

Don't get me wrong, I don't like MS any more than I like Sony (they're equal in my book), but I think MS has a stronger/better business plan.

no one who have played u2 would say something like that.

since when being polished game hurt? GT5 looking like no other game racing game ever.

Which part about U2? The gunplay feels off compared to other TPS (ME2, Gears 2). I like the platforming/climbing, but it's almost as easy as AC, you just need slightly better eyes. And it's a very cinematic game, plenty of people have said it's too much of a movie, and not enough of a game to them.

Personally, I like U2, I don't think it's as good as all the big fans make it out to be though. Then again, I haven't finished it yet (only get to play it twice a month at my cousin's place). We'll be finishing it tonight actually.

Nothing wrong with polishing, and I'm sure it will look good. But I don't want to wait 5+ years for the next iteration in a good franchise.

Also, there are FAR more important things than graphics.