Not sure I see the problem. Will PS gamers have a chance to play the game sounds like they will. If you kind of think about this, MS probably have to make these types of deals especially when Sony can get exclusives for doing absolutely nothing. Games like Persona, Nioh and other Japanese games. Its just the nature of the business that when an opportunity comes you ride it for as long as you can. Even though Phil said he is not in favor of doing these deals, that does not mean he said he will not do them. Hard for me to see where he lied.

Also a lot of you just give Sony a pass every single time or have your excuses ready but it is the nature of the business so not even sure why this is even big news.

Yes, Ninendo had a lockout chip during the 1980s. Which they reneged on during the 16-bit era and Sega got many/most of the same games. So that was already a non-issue by the time Sony showed up. I've specifically said since Sony had entered the business they have engaged in buying content for the purpose of keeping it off other platforms. They largely succeeded in getting the 3rd party community to black ball Sega (especailly Japanese devs) for starters. 

Sony would pay for the same reason they've always done. They fancied the PS4 as the return to PS2 style Japanese market and started buying games like SFV and MH World from guillable third parties like Capcom to reach that goal, problem is PS2 market there is never coming back and Capcom miscalculated Switch not being a success. 

The moment Sony regained market leadership, they've gone back to basically their old ways of money-hatting content. I mean if offered right now, Sony could have PUBG, but they'd have to allow games like SFV, MH World, FFVII Remake, Ni No Kuni 2, content deals of a variety of Western third party games, etc. on all other platforms ... Sony wouldn't take it. Because they have more to lose than to gain. 

It is still timed exclusive. I can wait.

Cause they want to get the upper-hand in Japan, that's why. The Xbox audience doesn't care too much about capcom and SE games. Money hatting monster hunter is a great move from them. Same goes for FfVii remake. Sony locks out content way more, just look at the activision games. Cod and Destiny both have exclusive content only available to PlayStation. Cod 4 remaster was available to both systems at the launch of infinite warfare, yet the standalone version came out a month earlier on PS4 even though the game was finished for XB1 already. That's much more scummier than this imo.

Actually, it's even older than that for consoles. Before Nintendo threw their hats in the ring, exclusives weren't locked to a platform. Nintendo games themselves were appearing on many platforms. Cue, the NES. Nintendo started locking down devs and publishers left and right. And they were highly restricted as to how they were able to distribute games. Third parties were allowed only so many carts and could publish only five games a year, so companies that developed for the platform had to create shell companies to get around Nintendo's anti-competitive measures. 

Which is crazy, since they were competing not only against rival console makers, but their third parties as well. Soooo, if we REALLY want to get into who was starting these corporate lockdowns on console, we can start with the big N and ol' Hiroshi Yamauchi himself.

The actual practice of getting exclusive deals is just basic business.  But they really shot themselves in the foot when they took the moral high ground because Sony were out bidding them for the deals.  Now they look foolish trying to pull one of their own.  

It was a pr stunt that badly backfired. 

Total dick move from the perspective of the consumer but a pretty clever business move.

If you mean a Sony or Nintendo created game being on a machine that they manufacture is in line with this? Surely you understand the difference between creating a game on a platform for your audience and just taking measures to prevent a game created by someone else from going to a rival platform?

One of the above scenario's creates a game, the other one creates nothing.

Oh yeah, think the OP is just making a point of this coming off the tails of Phil Spencer at this interview

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-06-12-the-big-interview-xbox-boss-phil-spencer

Most notably : I've been pretty open about, I'm not a fan of doing deals that hold back specific pieces of content from other platforms. You don't see that in the deals we've done with Assassin's and Shadow. We'll have a marketing deal on those, but I don't say, hey, I need some kind of Strike or skin somebody else can't play.I don't think it's good for our industry if we got into a point where people are holding back the technical innovation of game developers based on a marketing deal.

So yeah, no one really would be shocked about a third party game being wrapped up in the guise of wanting to be on a system if it wasn't for the fact that big Phil said he wasn't a fan of such moves to stop games appearing on other machines.

The situation with the NES is different because Nintendo wanted control over the content on their machine due to Atari crashing the market with waves of crappy games. Nintendo never "bid" on third party exclusives on the NES or offered money for like Megaman 2 exclusivity for 3-6 months or actively worked to pressure developers to keep games off other systems. 

And as stated Nintendo did not put a lockout chip in the Super NES, developers were free after the NES era to make games on whatever system they wanted.