Only good can come from a practice like this. More jobs provided for the industry. 3rd Parties will release their games as usualy on the consoles they want. While MS will be making games for themselves and making them to appeal to their market, creating new IPs and giving the new teams the ability for creative input as well. MS not relying on 3rd parties is good because it means they have value in the studios and IPs.

If MS stop making consoles, they have something to fall back on, studios to make games and money can be made that way too.

Acting as if Microsoft hasn't announced a nice amount of exclusives.

The article wasn't saying that and most people on this thread haven't said that (although many have commented on MS' lack of quality first party output).

It simply pointed out that money being spent on securing a "timed" exclusive from a third party has numerous caveats including negative PR and the simple fact that the money could be spent on funding internal development of another title which MS would be able to wholly own and control.

One of the better writers at GamesIndustry.biz

True, people should also keep an eye on warner bros studios (batman and dying light). Those guys have seen the light and seem to be investing heavily in game development.

And Mortal Kombat....and Lego, and Lord of the Rings. WB games have a lot going for them. Good IPs, the DC universe to fall back on (even if only 1 good DC game has come out in years... 1 series. They however are building a good range of studios working on popular and known franchises. Sure they are movie franchises and comics but they do have some new IPs.

Disney should take note, ending the Activision contract for Marvel Games and pretty much obliterating LucasArts is not a way to build on a wild range of franchises and a huge history of games. There are as far as I know, no Star Wars games in development. No Marvel games in development. A very sad fact.

You said "it doesn't benefit ALL gamers . It just benefits the gamers that are on the right side (or both)." Your post clearly says it's beneficial for some gamers, when in reality, it doesn't give anything to xbox owners, it only takes things away from PS owners.

Microsoft have a lot of first party studios. Maybe they arent using all of them right, but they have plenty. In general the article could be aplied to sony or Nintendo as well as they have done the exact same thing. 

That doesn't mean they can't invest in those studios more, especially with the money they spent on securing short-term exclusivity.

And the article can't really be applied to Sony or Nintendo anymore. What makes this case rather unique is that

1. Tomb Raider is an established franchise that has a rather large (60-80%) fanbase already on PS/PC.

2. Third-party deals are becoming too expensive (the amount of lost revenue from initial sale and potential DLC sales is simply too big, especially if your console isn't leading in sales/momentum) to the point where truly securing big name exclusives would cost more than the development of a new AAA title. This is the first time in a long-time that any of the big three have splashed out to completely secure a full exclusive.

3. This is a full game, not just DLC

Now maybe Rob Fahey could write an article about how stupid paying for exclusive DLC or other platform specific content is for the three console manufacturers (it wouldn't surprise me if he has already), and that would also be equally valid. But this situation is specifically different for the three points above. Point 1 and 3 leads to annoying the fanbase of the franchise (negative PR) whilst point 2 suggests the sheer amount of investment MS would have to make in this could have been spent elsewhere, perhaps even helping to build MS' next Halo/Gears level IP.

Check the link.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=125163689&postcount=7090