Seems pretty accurate to me. See my post above that I think the list only incorporate's titles in a system's ecosystem...hence no Alan Wake/Witcher 2. Although Alan Wake took forever to get onto PC.
I don't think it's a
representative list. It may be "accurate" in that it follows its own rules strictly, but the way those rules are chosen undermines many of the possible points it could make.
Ports to other consoles: It retroactively removes exclusives because of late ports (Alan Wake, Fable III)--which if you're trying to say "do you buy the system today if you've never played anything you needed the system for" is fine, but if you're trying to write a historical narrative is useless. It's like saying Final Fantasy VI wasn't a SNES exclusive because it later got ported to PS1--yes, true, you don't need to buy a SNES today for FFVI, but if you're trying to tell a story about the SNES versus Genesis it's not a valuable restriction. So that's something that would considered if the discussion is meant to be historical.
Vita: Games ported to PC (outside the console ecosystem) are excluded. Fair enough. Games ported to Vita (outside the console ecosystem) are not. I think that's a reasonable set of assumptions, but it's also one that has a specific impact on the Sony side for the "bigger". For example if the question is "If I own a gaming PC, what can I get exclusive on 360?" then excluding multiplats makes sense. If the question is "I own a 360 and a Vita, what can I get exclusive on PS3?" then some other stuff would be excluded.
US/EU: It includes games that are released in the US/EU during that period but whose original release was before that period (for example, White Knight Chronicles, Yakuza 3). Again, consistent with the rules. Saint Seiya is listed but did not release in the US.
Retail only: Never mind XBLA/PSN thing--DeathSmiles II, Akai Katana, and other retail games are excluded by this rule-- or perhaps because they're viewed as "ports" (of arcade games). But yes, XBLA/PSN are worth considering too for both sides.
MIA: The various Lips games released after 2010 are not listed (fine, because they're annual content packs?)
That's not to say that the conclusion you're meant to draw--that Sony has more exclusive games and Microsoft shifted primarily to Kinect and the only exclusive 3rd party titles are Japanese and Sony has all those--is wrong, because I don't think it is wrong. Sony clearly has the larger first party and more aggressively released games during that period and Microsoft clearly shifted interest to Kinect and if they're your bag, Sony's Japanese exclusive support from smaller publishers can be a BIG edge. So kudos to the author for demonstrating that. But I also think the rules affect the outcome of the list. All of the rules individually are justified, I'm not saying there's a problem with any one rule, but the composition of the rules impacts the list and it's clear why the specific rules were chosen is to support the position the author had.