There's absolutely no problem whatsoever with Sony buying exclusives. There IS a problem, however, with Sony buying exclusives and then pretending they do not -- that they are above such immoral behavior. That is what is happening here, and that is bad. 

The second Peter Moore was confronted with the facts, he admitted they help companies by paying for advertising, etc, and said that's just part of the business; if you want to call that "paying for exclusives," then fine, that's what it is. That's a reasonable and honest response.

That isn't what Sony is doing, and that's the problem here.  

This is what I said, but I said it later and less eloquently. No one has a problem with Sony paying for exclusives or releasing multiple SKUs of their machines. However, when they mock the competition -- or, even worse, suggest they are underhanded or immoral -- and then do the exact same thing themselves, then that is bad.

If Sony buys exclusives, and admits they help companies with advertising or developmental costs or what have you, great. That's a reasonable and intelligent business strategy.

Sony buys exclusives and says they do not = bad

Sony does not buy exclusives = bad

Sony buys exclusives and admits that they do so = good

Alternatively, they could also totally alter their business approach to video games. If done correctly, they wouldn't need to buy exclusives at all. That's not something you can typically do mid generation, however, so that will have to wait. In the mean time, they're playing the exact same game as Microsoft -- except Microsoft is open about it and, from my perspective, they're playing that game significantly better than Sony is right now. Deeper pockets probably helps.

At any rate, the wording Ubisoft used here screams "We are still making these games for the 360/PC, but we they will be released noticably later and we are legally obligated not to talk about them." That's certainly what such wording has meant in the past, at least. 

Can the same people bash Microsoft for releasing HDMI in their consoles just because Sony did etc....

This bitchfest goes both ways between MS and Sony.

 Yes

That's a different situation because (as far as I know) Microsoft never bashed the PS3's HDMI port.

I'm pretty sure the way Microsoft and Sony get companies are different, Microsoft may just hand over a blank check and say have fun, while Sony does not have that kind of money so they may help advertise the Game during Sony ads, or place it on the PSN, or pay for the extra costs of Blu-ray or something to that effect.

Of course this is just a guess, but i'm sure it is something like what i said.

Or we can say that Sony pays for exclusives when we have proof? Maybe there is a good reason why Haze is exlusive for ps3. The studio might had to little money to make 3 versions and they did not want to compete with Crysis,Halo3 and they thought that they could be the big must have game for ps3 this christmas?

 OHH yes they did.

Source?

search for it, is google that complicated ?