Oh thats simple to answer, when you removed a game from playstation, not many complaine since many own one due to it being the most popular worldwide. When MS or nintendo do it you cut out 20 million people, so more complaine.

Exclusives are great for the industry because it both breeds competition and also offers the highest possible quality.

Well because SONY is the best, and that's come from a PC gamer like me. If PS platform suck, i will not support PS4 and SONY, SONY from time to time, even with PS3 disaster always help game developer and game publisher. Especially for PS4, and also with PS4 exclusives, there is no worries of games sales because their platform sell a lot and will benefit game developer and publisher. And if Gabenewell is want to support PC industry why didn't even make Half life 3 and make it exclusive to PC and buy kojima IP and make it exclusives?

Note: replace "people are mean?" with "exclusives are still happening on the console you don't oooown?"

I've been a bit dismayed with the resurgence of third party exclusivity this generation. I'm hoping it's just because MS and Sony are fighting their hardest to secure as much of an install base in the first couple of years and that the practice will die down soon.
But the practice of paying for a timed exclusive really rubs me up the wrong way. It costs less for the console manufacturer, and it doesn't cost the publisher as many sales, so it seems a lot more tempting for both parties then traditional complete exclusivity. Imagine a world where everyone gets every game, but everyone has to wait a year for half of them. That would suck.
And it's just mean. I can swallow first party exclusives, because they were the ones who brought the game into the world in the first place (but I would still LIKE to play Halo on Playstation. It wouldn't be the end of the world for Xbox owners if I could do that).
But what MS did with Tomb Raider just sucks. I hate hearing about how they "added value" to the Xbox One. No they didn't. They didn't give anything to anyone. All they did was took it away from everyone else.
I don't care if in business speak, taking away market share from your competition translates to more market share for you. The actual consumers, even the Xbox owners didn't get anything out of this deal. And it makes me shudder to think of console manufacturers going around strengthening their footholds, not by giving, but by taking away : (

Yeah, from a business standpoint it's probably not the greatest idea to restrict the audience like that. But it's also not that bad when the more popular platform is going to have such a big userbase. Basically there's probably not going to be a need to release the game on Xbox One, so Kojima can release the game on whatever platforms he wants - which, again, has seemed like he might have a bias for Sony. It's not all about money for everyone, which is why it's in the gray area. It might be very close to one end, but it's not black or white.

That said, there's probably some, umm, funding going on here. Or moneyhatting, depending on how you view it. I'd like to point out that a small studio might actually need funding, at least for bigger projects, in which case it's either exclusivity or finding a 3rd party publisher (or crowd funding, or some other trickier method).

Gabe Newel doesn't own PC though, he just owns a private company that deals with a client selling 3rd party titles with a few of their own titles which were also released on consoles and are playable on MAC/Windows/Linux, really in the end what they had wasn't exclusive and I don't see Valve ever buying studios or devs to sell exclusively on PC, that's not really how PC exclusivity works, that's more or less how console exclusivity works though. Exclusives on the PC are often exclusive because either:

1. The developer doesn't have the budget to port the game to the other platforms.

2. The mechanics of the game do not work with a console interface and would be better suited to a keyboard and mouse layout.

3. Some cases a game can't run all that well on current/last gen systems.

None of those involve the passing of money or "if I give you this you give me that" kind of deals that go on only within the console indsutry, with PC it's a dev/pub footing the bill and giving us the game or us gamers backing it ourselves (Kickstarter and other KS related sites along with devs like Chris Roberts with Star Citizen where users footed and still foot the bill for the game).

You hit the nail on the head there. The fact that the main two consoles are pretty much the same machines (with some slight processing power variations) highlights that the console wars are kept active not for the benefit of consumers, but for the waring factions themselves.
Microsoft will never stop making Xbox just because they realise that they're providing the product which Sony already has covered, or vice versa. They would rather keep the industry carved up if it means one of those chunks belongs to them.

Of course, there's a danger of monopoly if there were only one platform for all of gaming, which is why it would be important that that one hypothetical platform would not be owned by anyone. Sony owns the Playstation format, and Micosoft owns the Xbox format, so games have to go through them if they want onto those machines.

If there was only one format, to be benificial to consumers, that format would have to be free and open to anyone who wants to develop for it (like how it is with PC)

The Steam Machines are one glimpse of that future, but unfortunately, I don't think they'll change enough hearts and minds. A lot of consumers have unfortunately been suckered into the mentality that there NEEDS to be a platform war, because reasons.

Having an open platform to develop on also presents problems. Once upon a time, Atari was the only platform people cared about, and their licensing standards were so lax that a flood of shitty games nearly killed the industry, so for a platform with literally NO licensing quality requirements outside of being able to pay to distribute your game, there would arise a need for middle men to apply quality control, eg. in such a world, maybe Game retailers would refuse to stock the kind of shit we see on Steam Greenlight all the time.

The situation we are in right now is not too bad. Third party publishers are the life blood of the industry, and that's a good thing compared to the days where Everything was either on Sega or Nintendo platforms but never both. But lately the two big boys Sony and MS have been exurting more dominance over that third party market, slowly returning us to a situation where everything is an exclusive.
It's hardly like the sky is falling yet. I'm just saying: I don't want that trend to continue, much less grow.

That's why exclusivity are good  and bad, there are some positive and negative on it, it depend where we stand. Still, going with multyple consoles is the wise choice because the reality  is hars, big company like SONY, Microsoft or Nintendo will not care for people outside their fans. For me buying PS4 is not just because i expecting first party title but also preparing my self if there is an exclusivity from Japanse publisher . 

I don't mind exclusive games IF:
- The devs or studio need funding to make the games (Recent Examples such as Bayonetta 2 and No Man's Sky).
- The exclusives were First party titles. For examples, Uncharted, Zelda or Halo games.



What I don't like from exclusivity:
- Buy the Xbox One version to get this DLCs or Maps that you cannot get on other systems. Or Buy PS4 version and enjoy the beta version a few weeks earlier than the other systems.
- Big triple AAA titles that used to be multiplats and now become exclusive to a single console/system.