I don't like timed exclusivity in general, but the nature of whatever deal is made is what really makes or breaks my opinion of it (for what little it's worth). It's hard to get a complete picture of the exact nature of the deals since they are secretive, and I'm not sure I have enough info often to determine how they go down.
If a game legitimately requires assistance to be made, then go for it and have your timed/permanent exclusivity. I have no problem with this, as it is a net gain to gaming to produce something that wouldn't have existed otherwise without the help.
If on the other hand the game was already being made, and a company (ANY company) simply pays to restrict other access to it, then I think everyone loses. The company that paid money to deny others access could have used that money to fund, partially or completely, a new product. People who already would have had the game get less in the end.
I worry that this case is more likely the latter than the former based on what I've seen. I'm not really a fan of Tomb Raider, it doesn't really affect me personally (never actually finished DE). But if that IS what happened, I really don't like that it did.
And if indications come out that that's what Sony did with SF V, or what they did with FF VIIR, I'll hate that too. Paying huge money to restrict other people's access instead of to create is not what this hobby should be about, despite it being a business.
