If it has nothing to do with the success of Palworld, why weren't you calling for this game to be exclusive before it released? They SHOULD have you say, but why? Because it is now successful?
As for FF16, yes it does matter what else they provide because you claimed that Sony "don't fund" 3rd party exclusives. We know for a fact they fund them by providing additional resources (Xbox did this for Starfield by going company wide for testing, and I believe with Redfall by lending extra programmers to Arkane) for development and covering a portion of marketing costs. When you have the developers of FF16 saying Sony's support with optimisation allowed them to get the game working as they wanted for the audinece, it's strange to argue they're "not paying for their development" when they clearly are providing financial support via labour, expertise, marketing, etc. All those things cost money. That is financial support. "Just because they may send an XDev team there doesn't change anything" is you admitting your previous claim is a complete lie. You cannot even get your story right in a single paragraph.
Now as to your business argument. Sure, "both companies are going to do what they believe is best for their business", if so why are you trying to argue that "locking down" a now extremely popular game isn't about denying that game to Playstation and forcing users onto Xbox platforms? It's hard to argue this good faith I just want Xbox to support devs position while also arguing the company should do whatever it can to make a sale. Again, you cannot keep this argument straight. There isn't any need to be deceitful, everyone here can tell your Xbox-bias so why try to hide it? Just say "Ensuring this game doesn't go on Playstation is a win for Xbox and I support that." Much easier than all the deflection to appear neutral.
Timed exclusives are whatever. From an objective standpoint they're healthy since exclusivity helps push people to a platform based on attachment to a franchise but has no long lasting impact on accessibility to the game.
Your comment on not wanting to pay $70 for a game is why people prefer to work with Sony. How much money has Palworld lost by being free on GP? If it released at it's regular price on PS it would have helped the devs, so devs prefer working where they get paid and cheap people like you get pushed into Welfarepass. Arguing that it doesn't benefit you to buy a product at full price as a consumer is so economically wrongheaded it's truly bizarre. Sure, price has an impact on when a consumer wants to jump into the market, but your argument appears to be you shouldn't ever have to pay money for a product since it being free is more preferrable. You're welcome to be a cheapskate all you want, but the foundational transactional relationship of paying for a product is how sales work. If you don't want to pay you're on the same page as anyone who pirates games with zero intent to purchase, you are irrelevant as a consumer and businesses will no longer care because you're useless. That's the reality of "do[ing] what they believe is best for their business." I get more for less is never going to be a useful argument for exclusivity because the adverserial relationship of exclusivity is zero sum. Again, it goes back to as I said, you simply want this game to be on Xbox because it's popular and you don't want it on Playstation. It's already on Game Pass, you already recieved it for free, so why does it need to be exclusive? Well, as I've just said, because it's popular and you don't want others to enjoy it. There isn't anything else to it.