They are ultimately a benefit because everyone gets to play the game in the long run. Microsoft's approach is softer because they don't require you to buy a piece of hardware to play their games, since their games are on PC. The separation between forms of exclusivity is overall rather wishy-washy, and people will convince themselves one way or the other. Like, when Sony moneyhatted Tomb Raider back in the 90s, how do we draw a line there? They gave Eidos money and Tomb Raider was console exclusive to Playstation for 4 years. One can argue this money was needed to make the games, or one could argue it was essentially a bribe, and there's no real way to prove it either way.
Look at Final Fantasy VII being console exclusive to Playstation. Did Square really NEED Sony's money to make Final Fantasy VII? That's rather dubious. But they signed an exclusivity deal with Sony that basically boiled down to Sony providing a lot of marketing money in exchange for console exclusivity.