Right.  Games are far better now, and that's largely due to the fact that they can sell a shitload more copies of the game.  Devs and publishers exist to make money.  The more potential sales, the more they're able to spend to make a great game.  As a gamer, I prefer games to be great, rather than mediocre.  So, I can't support a return to the bad old days of forced exclusives (looking at you, Nintendo of the 80's).

God, that would be terrible.

I fail to see how that would benefit consumers and games don't seem to benefit much from being on a single platform. I mean look at PUBG or Ark (both launched on X1 first). If the game is poorly optimized to begin with there is little benefit from being focused on a single platform.

Multiplat = more sales. If a developer doesn't have the resources to optimize their game for multiple platforms, they should launch on one console. But if the sales potential is greater as multiplat, then they could bring in more people.

Sometimes developers get paid to go exclusive or a timed deal. But realistically Sony and MS won't do that often. Its not financially worthwhile, especially for the platform with a significantly larger userbase.

I feel like the only IPs that have any business being exclusive are the ones owned by the console manufacturers. Otherwise, it doesn't make any financial sense... unless a combination of moneyhats and lack of interest (such as JRPGs on Xbox) makes exclusivity more lucrative.

If you cant even answer to the first half of your initial question yourself. The most prestigious and anticipated games of this generation are exclusives and it doesnt come to your mind that their above average quality has anything to do with their exclusive status.

You re just confirming my view on the games community. A place inhabited by to much irrational to discuss rationally.

Then let me ask, how are platform holders are supposed to compete against one another...

Then console gamers will miss out on Elder Scrolls, Battlefield, Call of Duty, Quake, Unreal, PUBG, Half Life, Portal, Left 4 Dead, The Sims, Minecraft... List goes on as they were all PC Exclusive at one point.

It's a good thing they are multiplatform, it exposes more gamers to amazing games... And ultimately that is what our "hobby" is about, playing fun games.

Exclusives only benefit the platform holder, not the consumer.

With that in mind... Because I am primarily a PC gamer who also owns consoles... And because something like the Xbox One X has zero exclusives... I have no reason to use it, so it's a double edged sword. - But on the bright side, at-least I get to play my favorite games on my preferred platform.

Agreed. It was better when each console had their own personality.

If it "ruins" gaming, than how did the NES and PS2 exist and kick so much ass? Having exclusives makes gaming more exciting and interesting. It gives each platform an identity and makes each one worth owning. 

Since most of those are first person and the other two don't interest me... I could live with that.

JRPG's are pretty much the main genre that never had much PC exclusivity.

But it also means games like Neverwinter Nights, Baldurs Gate, Command and Conquer, Diablo, StarCraft, The Witcher, Civilization, Warhammer, Age of Empires, Supreme Commander and so on would have also never made it to console.

I could probably keep listing games... But you get my point. PC isn't just FPS.

I'm really choking at the irony of every point you try and make. Critical thinking and comprehension is key, use it to avoid falling into the same category of irrational person you're looking down on. Instead of answering a question with another question, try and extrapolate over the correlation you made. Exclusives aren't magically better than non exclusive games, if so why? The benefits afforded to being exclusive are easier optimisation and somewhat reduced development times, but this really doesn't shape the diversity of a game, or make it vastly different experience. What you're correlating in terms of the most anticipated games and exclusives is specific to 1st party exclusives, a distinction which obviously needs to be made. 

First party exclusives benefit from the ambitions of the platform holders/publishers (sony/microsoft/nintendo) not operating primarily as a software business. Their concern is producing system selling software, shifting hardware in the process and catering to a wide userbase. As a result developers generally get given more freedom and strive for the highest quality, but this of course doesn't garauntee quality. However what the OP is talking about is all games (3rd party) being made for one platform in mind. Which is why I posed, what is to gain? EA  publishing and developing  Battlefront II for the PS4 wouldn't have made it any less of a cash grab. FFXIII being made exclusively for PS3 wouldn't have made it any less linear. Titanfall 2 and Rise of the Tomb Raider managed to surpass their (timed) exclusive predecessors on metacritic. Meanwhile being exclusive didn't save The Order/Rise, or magically make Knack next the Mario. 

By all means, maybe you have a point that I've missed but you're going to have to make it. And more than a loose correlation this time.