If they are 1st party games or games that are FUNDED and published by a console maker, then no as it promotes healthy competition.

If the dev chooses only one platform, it sucks but they have their reasons. Maybe they do not have the resources to do more than one effectively, especially if say a JRPG, as an example, does not sell enough on X1 to make a profit. It sucks, but can't really hold it against them.

If a game is money hatted into not releasing on a certain platform, but the party involved is not funding and publishing the game themselves, then and only then can it truly be considered BAD for the industry...and make no mistake this particular practice is horrible.

No, they are not anti-consumer. In fact they are very pro-consumer. Most of times you'll get a better game for the same pricetag because a platform holder poured money on the game to promote their platform even accepting not to get the money back on that specific game. So you'll have more investment and caring for the game.

There are so many games that doesn't matter which of the 4 platform (PC, PS4, X1, Switch) you have you will have enough quality game to play out that the few exclusives won't jeopardize your enjoyment of gaming. It is much more people that love to complain about everything being entitled to play the game they want on the platform they want paying how much they want being pissed when some of these aren't met.

In Uncharted and Gran Turismo the microtransactions are pointless and needless. You can play perfectly fine and full without them. Can't comment on the rest though.

Even more when we compare to lootboxes and EA scandal.

I think exclusives give any gaming system it’s identity. If there weren’t exclusives, particularly on consoles, then there would no reason for multiple consoles and people would only purchase on brand infatuation alone. This would inevitably lead to a single company attempting to become the monopoly, and would cause another gaming market crash

If exclusives did not exist then people would just buy the most powerful platform (Not including PC), and others would go out of business. Sounds pro consumer that doesn't it? Oh wait, it isn't. One dominant platform would mean stupid prices, among other obvious issues.

The only difference between first party and 3rd party exclusive is that 3rd parties moneyhat just one game while 1st parties moneyhat whole game studios and hold them hostage, while forcing them year after year to put their great games on sub optimal platforms that only hurt the game.

First party exclusives are fine. Third party ones can be acceptable only if time-limited, otherwise they are definitely anti-consumer.

Unless it is a case where it is piblished and funded by a 1st party, just like Sunset Overdrive or Bayonetta 2/3.

Had it not been for Nintendo/MS, those games would not exist so I feel it is justified in that case.  It is when games get moneyhatted like Destiny on PS4, Rise of the Tomb Raider on X1, or any other game that fits that bill (timed or not) that it becomes anti consumer.

I think we’re inching closer and closer to a point where “spending money on goods or services” is considered anti-consumer.

Yes, they are. I do not see how anyone can think otherwise. When a game is exclusive you are forced to buy another console that you had no intention of buying. These companies force you to also pay to play online on their platform. 

Why shackle a game to one platform when it can go to multiple platforms to have a bigger audience, gaining more attention, gaining more sales, and everyone can enjoy it on their preferred platform? 

I've read some comments saying that it's good for 1st Party, but not 3rd Party. No, it's still anti-consumer regardless of who is making/publishing the game. Would it be nice to play Horizon ZD and God of War on PC without coughing up $300 to play them? Yes. Same goes for other platforms. 

Other comments I read said that it is anti-consumer, but it's pro-gamer. Yeah pro-gamer. Try telling Xbox One and PC gamers that Nier Automata should of remained a PS4 exclusive cause it would of been better for them. Try convincing PS4 gamers that it would of been better if Rise of Tomb Raider remained only on Xbox/PC. Try convincing PC/PS/Xbox gamers that Phoenix Wright should of remained Nintendo exclusive. I think you get my point. 

Also every time a game that is an exclusive gets announced for other platforms, what is the general response from gamers? Praise and excitement, or disgust and rage? 

Every time a game gets announced as an exclusive, what is the general response? Frustration, or disappointment?