It was more frequent before though, especially the PS one area, people love to forget that Sony bought an exclusivity deal for the TR games.  Eidos/core design had to make an yearly Tomb Raider and it could only be on PS one till 2000. (except for the First Tomb raider).

That news even made it to the news media including BBC  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/32939.stm

I worked side jobs and overtime to get my consoles. I like the variety I get from each one, each one has its strengths that I like depending on what I feel like playing at the moment.

Depends on how you look at it.

Maybe I am the wrong kinda person to even be posting on this matter, because most importantly I believe that different platforms shouldn't even exist. I believe there should be only one console and then the PC market. Now we either get to having just one console cause two of the three are killed off via competition, or we have one console as a joint entity between all three platform holders.

History has shown that having a multiplat game doesn't in any way "expand" a userbase of an IP, rather it just splits it. This leads me to believe that the whole concept of multiplatform consoles to begin with is really doing nothing more than splitting the overall userbase.

This is why I never really bother to buy more than one console each gen unless I am gifted a second one. I don't even care much to play every game that gets released since i tend to somehow buy no more than 10 major games per year. If a game I like or want isn't coming to my chosen platform, then so be it... I just move on. If 7-8 games I want isn't coming to my chosen platform, then it simply means I chose the wrong platform and I would address that by getting the right one.

More frequent? It's far less frequent than during the PS1/PS2 era. Street FIghter and Tomb Raider are isolate examples. Hell, just look at Metal Gear and Final Fantasy, both are multiplataform now.

Ironically enough, it's thanks to these third-party deals that the PS1 was able to massacrate the competition like it did (FFVII, yes).

And then they did the same with PS2's GTA 3.

Why every one forgot the worst deal ever, which killed thé vita in japan , Monstre Hunter

PS2 era says Hi

Same here. I just have to wonder sometimes when I hear people saying they beat x game in 2 days, x in a week and have 10s of thousands of trophies. I just don't get where they get all this time to play that many hours a day. 

Gaming is a luxury not a necessity.

The way I look at it is this, the companies are doing you a favour. The reason I say that is because if you are a true gamer you will buy all three systems. In order to buy all three you need money. How do you get more money? You better your life and work harder to get better paying jobs.

These companies make gamers raise above the mean wage line. They are making your overall life better by motivating you to buy more.

I've been playing Far Cry 4 since its release on November 18. I'm at 60% right now. And that is the only game I'm playing - some 25 hours in 20 days...

It doesn't hurt me at all, I buy everything. It may not be the best solution for those that can't afford more than one console, but it isn't really hurting anyone. Consoles have always had exclusives, that's not going to change anytime soon.

"last gen it was Ok to have a Wii + PC/X360/PS3 combo, which was not good at all."

What was not good about having that combo? I enjoyed that combo very much last gen.