So based on your logic holding 100% of a games content off another platform for 3 months is ok, while holding 3% of the content of a game off another platform for a year, or forever, is not.

Ok.

First off I thought we were debating on what he said you know his actual words.  If that is the case, a game is not content, its a product.  DLC, Ingaem CONTENT, items within the game you can either purchase or get updated is considered content.  So no, if I am taking his words to mean content in a game and keeping it permanently from other platforms then I see nothing he has done while running the division where he has done this practice.  

If you are going to call someone hypocritical, you first need to understand the context of what a person is saying first.  Time exclusives are not content.  There is a clear distinction between the 2.

So because I don't get 1% of it for me it no longer qualifies as content?  Sounds like someone is cherrypicking how content is defined to fit their narrative in this conversation.  If I can't access the product, I also can't access the content of that product.  They are hand in hand, not separate.

So let me get this straight from the bolded part.  In your opinion when someone says content, you immdediate think of the Product.  So when someone says ingame items, DLC, skins, etc.  You have no way to decern the difference between the game and the items in the game.  This is pretty much what you are saying.  So to take that further, with all the exclusives Sony has paid for with either 1st, 2nd or 3rd party, if you were an Xbox or Nintendo gamer, Sony would be denying you as a gamer those games because you are denied the content within them.  Do you see how silly this is making your statement.

I do discern the difference.  I am not the one identifying things as black and white as product != content.

As someone who buys console A I understand that I am not getting the content that is exclusively available from console B when console B's first party studio creates it.  Therefore I can make the choice to also buy console B.  And also console C.

Also as someone who buys console A I know that I might not get all the content that someone who buys console C gets because console C decided to buy timed, or outright, exclusivity.

However, as the head of console A - the one who normalized the practice of timed exclusivity last gen - it is hypocritical to take potshots at console B for continuing the practice you started.  Especially when the only reason those potshots are taken is because you are no longer the one in the drivers seat.

Also, as a consumer of said content on a whole (video games, not just console specific pieces) it is hypocritical to say its ok to keep 100% of content (or to use your term the "product") away from people for X amount of time but not ok to keep 3% of content (from that same differentiated "product") away for X amount of time.

Might be a matter of perspective, but its not my statement that looks silly to me at all.  Quite the opposite actually.

So you not being able to play a game for a month or 6 but have access to play all parts of the game including any xtra items, maps, skins, DLC you name it is the same.  So what do you think is the worst case scenerio.  You having to wait to play a game or you get to play the game at the same time but there is content made by the developer you can never play unless you own console A.  The content is free on the other console but the developer decided to hold that content back from you because another company paid for it.

While a time exclusive does not help you as a gamer it does help the developer.  Since you are a consumer you care nothing about what helps the developer as the consumer you only care what makes you happy.  While a time exclusive is money in the developers pocket and afford them the luxury to pay the cost of development early and help their bottom line, its an inconvience to you as consumer because you cannot consume that product early.  I get your position but its really not the same.  Time exclusive still gives you as the consumer to play every part of the game including any content within the game compared to having content permantly kept from you because you have console B.

LOL ok Mr. "Scorpio does not exist" 

That right there is just riddled with assumptions.  I do care what helps the developer as a consumer because if they make more money they make more games.  They make more games I get more entertainment.

Let's look at Destiny as an example as it is currently probably the most egregious of the timed exclusivity models.  Does not being able to play one strike (optional content) or not being able to use one or two guns (not required in the campaign mode) and not having a specific look on the character make the game unplayable?  No?  Ok cool.  Now if cross play was a thing and those PS4 exclusive guns were able to be used in matches with XB1 players there would be a legit complaint, but it isn't right now.

Now let's look at RotTR as another example.  If I only own a PS4, does it not being available there for me because MS paid for exclusivity make the game unplayable (and thus the content unaccessible) for me?  Yes?  Ok cool.

But go ahead and finish proving your point.  Tell me a game that came out that a company had partial exclusivity on (content only) where that content was actually detrimental to the game and a player's ability to complete the story - or main portion - of the game.

I typically don't mind phil spencer, and often times respect the things he says; but, this seems very hypocritical. I mean, he is complaining about this, yet thinks it was perfectly fine to pay for a year of exclusivity for rise of the tomb raider? That's an entire game.

So explain to me how paying for a 1 year full content exclusivity making the game sell less help the developer more than a small portion of the game being exclusive for life and not making it sell less but getting extra money.