This thread and any other RotTR threads from here on out won't end well I'm afraid.
I do find it odd that people find reasons to dismiss certain examples of how all parties involve are doing these things because it's a business to them. Nothing more, nothing less. None of the companies are doing things altruistically no matter which platform you own.
Microsoft obviously gave loads of money for this. SE took it to get the guaranteed $. As a previous poster stated simply, the took the easy way out. Coming from a management background I see why they did. Esp. In today's world if what have you done for me lately. I.e. Money to show to investors now, not a goal that more may (or may not) come in later. Too (sometimes just one) many quarters of missed expectations leads to unhappy investors.
On the flipside, those that think Sony is more altruistic and quickly dismiss the Haze example is grasping for it. New IP or not, they bought exclusivity, period. Street Fighter is more interesting though. I'm completely reading between the lines (and tea leaves) based on comments made by Capcom, Sony and MS , but I suspect that Capcom went to both Sony and MS for money and Sony outbid them as MS didn't want to spend the required money due to it eating at the sales of KI. Sony didn't do it to say We love gamers, we are going to spend money to give them the ability to play SFV. They evaluated it and thought that they would get a good ROI. Meanwhile it's possible MS was faced with the same or similar proposition and decided the money wasn't worth it for them as it would likely cut into the money the could make off of KI.
Again I'm just speculating on the SFV scenario based off comments I've read and from my (non-gaming) management background