You're trying to build a false and irrelevant argument.  Sony and Microsoft aren't going to stop making big budget exclusives, which makes your example meaningless.  They're adding content in addition to those big budget exclusives and trying to populate an entire library that will appeal to consumers as a whole.  In the realm of public perception, more games is better than less games--even if consumers don't want to play all of those games, the announcements themselves leave a positive impression relative to the continued health of the platform.  Volume is important.

Of course, that doesn't mean they can't have an impact on an individual basis, as well.  If someone is torn between wanting Halo and Uncharted, games like No Man's Sky or Rime can can give a consumer a nudge.  If you like the Whopper and the Big Mac equally, you might decide where to eat based on who has the best fries.

I think the proof is in the pudding.  The PS4 came out from the start showing us games, many of which were nice looking smaller titles, and they garnered praise and support right off the bat.  Journey was a downloadable title that Sony funded which became a fantastic success from almost any perspective.  No Man's Sky, as I mentioned above, was the talk of the forums when it was announced.  These are all positives.  Blockbuster positives?  No, not at all--they're smaller positives but they're also much cheaper.  I believe they can be worthy investments and I bet the people at Sony would agree.

Of course, despite people tossing around the word "moneyhat", the investment needed for a limited exclusivity deal can be remarkably minor.  Sony's Pub Fund is simply an advance against future royalties.  That's not exactly "throwing money around," but it can be a big help to developers who need some extra money to finish a game, which is why many people make the trade.

Bayonetta 2 says "Hi darling"

Did you even read what the representative said? How does what you wrote in bold remotely relevant to the topic at hand?

“We’re not known for exclusive [indie games] in particular, and that’s because we’re not throwing around a lot of cash. We also don’t see a huge benefit to developers in driving exclusive deals with platforms and consoles. They need to do what’s right for them from a business perspective, and we want to help complement that and make sure that they’re making the most from the experience on our platforms. We very much encourage all of our development partners to release simultaneously across all platforms.”

“We’ve seen the data that proves that the developers are the ones that are going to benefit from that versus going with an exclusive arrangement. We’re certainly not going to frown upon those people that are bringing exclusive content over to us, because we will make the most of it and make sure they are doing a great job with it. I think that we have a strong focus on multiplatform content, and that’s because we do have a point of differentiation with our control schemes and what these developers can create in a unique environment.”

They say it isn't worth to invest money in exclusivity; which is true, very very few indie games actually make an impact.

The Journey-type of exclusives doesn't qualify as indie game, so you are missing the context of the quote in question.