Yes it is.

A] Buying exclusivity : Throwing money for the solution. No involvement in the development of the product.

                            Vs

B] Buying a studio and nurturing it and intimately involved in the development of the projects.

I believe these two approaches are considerably different.

I thought the term was "moneyhatting".  You see people, particularly Sony owners, who get upset that Microsoft dare throw money at software developers to either have a game on their system, or make it exclusive.  It is seen as "Big, bad Microsoft" not showing any heart, and buying their way in.  It is a bit of a problem with they cost Playstation owners a chance at a title though (bigger problem with Playstation owners).

As I see it, it all costs companies money, including Microsoft.  Whether Microsoft bought the rights to a title, or paid a studio they own, it is all money.  

One bit of whining I find annoying here is over Mass Effect.  If Microsoft paid Bioware to develop Mass Effect, and have the rights to it, then to whine the PS3 isn't getting it, is absurd, in my opinion.  NO, just because EA owns Bioware now, doesn't mean that Mass Effect is supposed to go multi-console.  On a similar note, I am glad MSG4 stayed PS3 exclusive.  It is good a console have a few quality exclusives for it. 

Two differnet approaches indeed. But hey, if the game is great and *I* like it, I don't care if it was "A or B" just as long as it's on my console.

And both companies do both.  Sony just has more studios bought already and MS are just now starting up their own and buying small studios.

some 3rd-party studio needs money but want to stay independant  in that case buying exclusive is the best solution to help them

That's a half-assed argument retrofitted to justify the current emo-rage some people appear to be suffering as a consecuence of lost brands/games/ips. Buying a studio is a highly risky maneuver since a studio is nothing without the talent and the talent is not guaranteed to stay since, ya know, slavery got abolished a few years ago.

EA is the shining example of it, in the 90's they bought a shitload of studios - a huge investment. Now those studios aren't worth half what EA paid since the talent flew. You might use the standard "oh, but EA didn't treat them right!" counterargument, but even treating people right ain't a guarantee. Creative minds may easily flee again to pursue other avenues. Some of Sony's studios have suffered a similar fate, with Psygnosis being nothing but the charred remains of what it once was. Last year Sony fired a bunch of people from their European studios... a maneuver that while it surely helped Sony's shaken finantials weakened even more what once were some of the most prominent studios in the UK.

Of course owning studios has it's benefits too, but this is a business decision. Using ethic/moral arguments to justify one option or the other not only is laughable, but also it's a flag someone has an emotional stake on it. Unlike the execs who take the decisions...

"buying exclusivity" is an emotionally charged expression with considerable negative connotations that's being used by fanboys instead of the more proper and industry accepted, 2nd party development. Which by the way is nothing new: Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft... everybody does it.

Sony expects loyalty out of every third party company they make a couple dollars with.

Sony isn't intimately involved in their studios. Thats Nintendo.

They consider it stealing because they are egoists and want to brag about their own console, and since Microsoft is gaining ground, they bash Microsoft instead.

Thank you.