But in another thread it was revealed that MS must pay trillions for exclusive content because they are trailing WW. Do I believe them, or Phillip Spencer?

Yes, it's all to do with "money". Market share equates to money for devs if their game appeals to a good bit of that market share. It affects how much it costs to make a 3rd party game exclusive to one platform. 

Well like most things there's probably a happy medium in reality between the two extremes.  I find it extremely hard to belivee that the number of consoles that a game will miss releasing on when it goes exclusive does not factor into the cost unless every third party making this decision is an idiot.

Fixed to make it more reasonable.

Lets give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he's not lying. But just spinning the truth a little. 

Nowhere did he say that it will cost the exact same amount for them as it would for Sony to land third party exclusives. Hell, notice he said devs have their own view of the market in relation to their product. 

So yeah, maybe its about money. In the sense that Sony is getting the deals because they are willing to spend it while MS isn't. What he's just not saying is that MS isn't spending it cause "due to the difference in install base" it would cost them significantly more for the deal than it would cost Sony. It also doesn't help that while paying for the exclusive deal they still end up with the worse performing version of the game. So there really is no sense in buying exclusivity anymore. 

"So, they don't "gobble" the deals up. They buy them. You know, I read the same things you do, and I know some people think it's somehow less expensive to sign third-party exclusives if you have a bigger market-share. I can tell you, it has nothing to do with market share."

Only an idiot would believe that Phil...

"When you go in to do a deal, with a third party, that third party has its own view of the global market and the value of it. And they should, they should think about their assets and how valuable they are, just like anyone would when they are selling their goods."

And that's a very fancy way of saying nothing.

Well, at least exclusives that already released or are near final probably where out of that market share thingy.

Because when Sony made the Bloodborne deal no one knew how it would turn out. And when Sony and Capcom made their SF V deal it was probably the same, because that might have been at least two years ago.

As for deals that are made right know, i can't really believe install bases don't matter. I'd bet they do make some nice projectcions and estimates where install bases willbe at the release and that this affects the price of those deals.

Hahaha priceless.

lets use that annoying thing called common sense.... 

Let's assume that a publisher makes $40/game. 

On PS4 they stand to sell 4M copies of the game. That's $160M. 

On XB1 they stand to sell 2M copies of the game. That's $80M.

Let's say both MS and Sony are willing to buy exclusivity for at least 1 year. You really think they would be charged the same thing considering how the game would have sold? 

OK, so I can see what's happening in the future from this statement just like I could when Nintendo made theirs. Spencer has just stated they need to focus on 1st party games and now he's trying to suggest ANY exclusive on the Sony platform is moneyhatted. Answer: MS are struggling to make deals with 3rd parties because of the 'MARKET SHARE' (Spencer) Sony have gained, so he's trying to help turn it into a negative for any future announcements from Sony that are seen as third party exclusives. MS play their fanbase like old fiddles.