In your original comment you said that it was a positive Microsoft does this, that's why I targeted them specifically. If you check my first post I acknowledge they all do this and it's bad, but Nintendo do it the least (I think) so I went with them.

You can make a case for MS being better at publishing than Nintendo, but I wouldn't say that examples like Titanfall should be used. It's looking like they paid for 1 year of exclusivity which is money spent to weaken the PS4 lineup rather than boost their own. That is the only reason I targeted your comment, I'm not debating the rest of their strategy, just saying this aspect is bad.

For exclusives and new IP i'd say sony has the best, Nintendo second for exclusives though lacks new IP, MS seems eh to me as only of few games ever interested me as first party titles (Halo and Forza aren't on that list :p)

I'm not sure what any of these companies strategies are for obtaining/creating exclusives so I can't vote :p

^This is why we can't have threads like this.

Well ... I don't see that issue as a clear cut one. It is in some sense like the used game problem that is regularly discussed, and that's why I said it can't be decoupled from more positive actions. One may say that implementing a timed exclusive strategy is bad in the sense that it excludes a group of gamers from experiencing games. That's fair, but gamers will still get to experience the game(s) since it is temporary, and one could also argue they're doing this with the aim of increasing their foothold  and installed base (a benefit to them) of which influences the risks and number of titles they're willing to publish (benefit to gamers).  I can’t discount the positive ripple effects from those actions.

Surely it reduces the risks and titles they publish? If the timed exclusive strategy is effective, they'll keep doing it. There will always be fewer games than there would have been. Or it isn't effective and they have to boost their first party to catch up, so all they have accomplished is wasting money and time better spent on their own games.

Nintendo, mostly because I can never really get into Sony first party games. I mean they are good games that sony puts out, but I usually just play through them once and sometimes not even finish them, unlike with Nintendo where I usually replay each game multiple times. idk, maybe its just my tastes gear more towards Nintendo.

But I do think Sony has a better variety then Nintendo, but not by much.

All based on opinion, but most of Nintendo games are average at best. I've played many games in the same genres that are far better hands down than the Nintendo iteration. If these titles weren't Nintendo franchises, they'd probably receive 6/10 or 7/10 at best. I've seen better games that have actually received these ratings.

With Microsoft, there's really only Perfect Dark 64, Shadow Complex, Gears and Forza. Halo sucks in my opinion. Gran Turismo 5 is better than Forza 4. Congratulations, you can decorate your cars.

Then Sony. They might have had some average games here and there if you're talking about Move titles, but the majority of games that aren't Move required have been quality. A diverse library of quality titles.

care to name this tittles? 

Nintendo without an doubt. They use their developers for both handheld and console while Sony can't, MS has a problem with long period with no first party games.

If it is timed then they won't be fewer – they will just arrive at a later date. If it is not timed then it is an outhouse exclusive and that still brings benefits to gamers not unlike Sony’s partnership with studious such as ThatGamingCompany.

In my view, that argument would hold weight with Microsoft's actions on the 360, but so far I am inclined to think otherwise with the Xbox One based on their divulgates. Plus, their resources are significantly deeper than their competitors (one would be tempted to say virtually limitless), so I don't see it as wasting time or resources, especially when they're pushing a lot of games both in house and out. The timed exclusive bit is just a part of their strategy to shore up the console in the early stages before throwing their full weight on the system. The great majority of the games they showed follow this pattern. Their war chest allows them to do quite a lot of things simultaneously. They're building the base with the aid of a temporary measure - which will end up on other consoles so it is not a zero sum situation – in order to support their system with their own content later. In the opening phase of a platform timed exclusive content serve a purpose. If you were telling me this about the Xbox 360 in its twilight years I would totally agree with you, though.