Exclusives on PC make full use of the keyboard and mouse, at least they used to do. Mouse aiming is still a thing on PC is it not?
While a console port might be locked to 30fps with huge hud and button prompts for xbox controllers. It's hard playing Ori with a DS4.

And doesn't Battlefield have ray tracing implemented for the new NVidea RTX cards? Ah, it's unlocked now for older cards as well
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2019-real-time-ray-tracing-tested-on-gtx-pascal-hardware.

Games made for PC have more options, run better in different resolutions and frame rates, let you navigate menus with the mouse. Exclusives are good for PC as well.

And what reason does it have to do so? Horizon was made to sell PS4's, it isn't going to be worked on to sell Xbox 1's and Switches

You could better ask is console gaming in general is an anti consumer practice. I would say it isn't I like consoles and I don't mind the restricted space of consoles that much.
Besides its kind a hard to accuse a company for releasing a game it funded and/or made and releases it on its own platform. Why should the company release it on other platforms it the company doesn't want to do that.

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Depends.

If it's a first exclusive, of course that is perfectly fine. Or a third party exclusive that the platform maker helps pay for the development of.

The only time it is anti-consumer is if it was a game that would have launched on the competing platform anyway, especially when the majority of the fanbase is on that platform, but another company pays for timed exclusivity. Even worse is when the game is announced for both platforms, but then a few weeks/months before launch it is announced to be a timed exclusive.

Depends on the reason. What's happening on PC with Epic Games Store is (and just for the record, I'm still not a huge fan of Steam), but, say, first-party exclusives on consoles are not.

Mixed.

Having exclusives prevents monopolies is good for competition, but at the same time, a monopoly will create/buy exclusives.

Competition keeps innovation rolling and prices stable. If all consoles could play the same games they would only differentate by power. This would lead to competitors dropping out of the market one after another and then the remaining company will have the ability to set prices however it wants. Do you think a console would still cost 400, then? Think again. Do you think you would still pay only 60 for the online subscription and another 60 for the average AAA game?

At the same time, do you believe you would still have the same width and scope of games like we are used to today? Many franchises wouldn't be supported anymore and the software manufacturors would only produce the same games over and over again with no reason to become creative or diverse.

I don't think so at all. Full games being exclusive, or being timed exclusives don't bother me. What I don't like when a game is released on multiple platforms, but certain content is exclusive like; missions, guns, etc. You're paying the same price, but you're getting less content than a different platform. That is something that needs to die.

But then you'd have to give that same exact kudos to the other platforms, because they have all performed plenty, and thus shouldn't be excluded either.

There are still games being made to this day that skip PC, or skip X1/Switch/PS4, but that's either down to dev decision or publisher, and most of the time it's a pub based decision. 

A first party exclusive is made with a single system in mind, a 3rd party most of the time is designed for multiple sets of hw, even when you now have to factor in PS4P and X1X hw configs. People complained about TR being timed exclusive and that was deserved anger, because we all knew where that game was landing beforehand. When a dev flat out says nothing of other platforms, it becomes a "wait and see" approach. 

mmn, I don't think nor see the Switch being some godlike being, that can seemingly "save" these companies reporting bad sales. Most of the time it's actually the fault of these publishers making bad calls, devs leaving studios and studios being liquidated, then replaced with incompetent studios, which over the long term affect an IP, not "all 3 platforms besides one are bad, but you're ignoring that one platform that does better than all the rest". 

I'm not sure where you're going with this?. I can accept console games ported to PC being better suited to a gamepad, but I also think the same should be vice versa for PC games designed with a K+M in mind, rather than trying to supplant the gamepad>every other input method.

Yeah, making full use of a peripheral is an absolute, non fail of a must. The same would be needed for games made for consoles. They need to make absolute full use of their gamepad. I was more talking about the actual system hw, than the system control peripherals. 

I'm actually able to play Ori with both a K+M and a gamepad, even the Switch pro gamepad (thanks to Steam gamepad config support).

Battlefield does, but as you can see, it's only first gen support, and feels like it wasn't there from the start, because it's only come into play, as RT started to pick up, rather than just as the tech came out. The general performance of RT is also being held back by the fact that it's not fine tuned either. With how the latest cards cost an arm and a leg, run quite hot and aren't being used properly (benchmarking and general reviews of these cards point this out), RTT isn't exactly being the end all to be all and isn't exactly being used by a number, larger than the price of the cards themselves.

Also, it being unlocked for older cards tells us that they've had to backtrack on claiming it would "never work" ion older cards, and that we'd need their latest cards, but then their latest cards don't perform with it as well, then of course the fact that the unlocked cards still suffer with it as well. 

There are indeed games that make actual use of hw (like some RTS titles like Ashes of a singularity) and then there are games that make improper use of the PC hw (like Creed Origins, which requires more higher end hw, despite Ubisoft clearly telling us of console parity, and looking almost the same, save for slight shadow and render distance, which is in no way justifiable for far more expensive hw, and thus is improper use).

Games designed for PC are supports to come with those features and performance options.

hw based exclusives or first party I can absolutely agree with (like Star Citizen for example), but 3rd party ones?, hell naw. It's why I'm glad Frostpunk is coming to consoles, because they made that game for PC first, focused on content releases, and further refinement, then opting to scale the game and tune it for what current gen hw can handle. Doing it that way allows for a refined PC version, without having to hinder it, while also molding the game for what console level hw can handle for it down the line, rather than the opposite way, which benefits consoles to a degree, and hinders PC over time. 

Thing is, prices aren't any cheaper on EGS, and if anything, the consumers there are having to pay that bit more, thanks to Epic not wanting to pay the fees that Valve does in some countries, which has people annoyed that this "competition" isn't benefiting the consumers in the way we'd usually hope for. 

We keep hearing about these devs making exclusivity deals with EGS, having promised "trickle down" savings or "passing the savings onto the consumer", which only end up with netting the consumer a meager $5 discount, which isn't even worldwide for everyone. I've seen far superior deals over on Steam, GoG, Itch.io and GMG.