Ugh, anti-consumer? Please, this has been the way of the gaming industry since literally forever. Exclusives are the reason why the gaming industry is alive. The only thing that's different is we've become a bunch of whinny entitled people.

First party exclusives, yes, third party exclusives, no, infact the exact opposite.

We had the exact same rumor last year, and I'm pretty sure right before/after the PS4 was revealed too. It's not happening, sorry. Even if it did, the Crash game that people want isn't sustainable in this generation at $60. It'd have to change quite a bit from what everybody seems to beg for (automatically making it terrible to many), it'd have to be a $20 PSN game, or it'd have to be painfully short. Otherwise it's not making its money back, and if we know anything about Kotick, he's not putting through anything that's not either a quick cash in like THPS5 or that's not gonna make a big turnaround quickly.

No, third party exclusives have also been around since, forever too. Explain to me how it's different for a person who wants to play a game, whether it's a 1st party or 3rd party, how would it be different? There is absolutely no reason to think a 1st party exclusive would be different from a 3rd party exclusive.

Exclusives are in almost every industry. They are hardly anti-consumer. 

EDIT: Let me explain better, if a consumer wanted to buy a game, why would it matter if it was a 1st party or 3rd party? He would STILL need to buy the console to play the game. If you think 3rd party exclusives are anti consumer then you HAVE to think that 1st party titles are also anti consumer.

Are you attempt to imply that GTAV would still have sold just as much as it did on one platform?, third party games sell better on multiple platforms because it means people with a single console have the option to buy it. 

Third party exclusives only happen for two reasons:

1) Developer/publisher does not have the manpower/money/time to develop for multiple systems.
2) A platform holder has brokered a deal to secure the exclusivity, the reason for doing so is to make their platform the only option if someone wishes to play that game, thus, limiting it's audience by force.

If a third party game goes exclusive and the sales don't do too well, it can, and has multiple times in the past, resulted in the company that made it going out of business, where as releasing the same game multi-platform requires a larger investment but a much larger return.

It's really that simple.

@edit - If a person doesnt have any console to begin with then sure, it wouldnt matter, but that's the smallest possible minority of customers, the majority of gamers already own a particular system.

And no, a platform holder / first party making a game for their system only, isn't anti-consumer, it's creating something that didn't exist, anti-consumer is taking away something that could have existed by limiting availability, or adjusting an available option to require a larger financial investment or undue action from the customer in order to purchase/use/enjoy something that would otherwise have been available without it, had a deal/arrangement not been made.

If a game was going to release on consoles X, Y and Z, and company X openes the chequebook and suddenly, the game is only for console X, customers of consoles Y and Z no longer have the ability to purchase the game and enjoy it unless they buy console X.

If a game was only going to release on console X to start with, then the customers of consoles Y and Z aren't being denied anything, as the game was never coming to their system to begin with.

Why are you talking about sales? What do you sales have to do with the consumer? The sales of a game matter to the developer/comapny so it's not anti-consumer in the slightest sense. 

No, the biggest reason why 3rd party exclusives happen is so consumers buy their consoles, literally. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Companies like Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo fund/buy these games that don't have manpower/money/time in the belieft that they will sell consoles. They wouldn't be funding these games if they believed they wouldn't sell consoles. Microsoft funded Titanfall for one reason, they believed it would sell Xbox Ones, if they didn't believe it, they wouldn't have funded it.

When most people say 3rd party exclusives are anti-consumer, they say it because they have to buy another console. And as a I said, 3rd party exclusives exsist so people buy their consoles.  What you are talking about, comapnies going out of business, that has nothing to do with the consumer, if anything 3rd party exclusives are anti-developer but they're not because these developers themselves decide to go exclusive.

I don't think anything you talked about in this post is anti-consumer.

Because are by the consumers, higher sales = more consumers that are able to buy the product.

As for the rest, i'll say it again.

First party games are not anti-consumer
Third party games are not anti-consumer
Third party exclusives are not anti-consumer if the studio themselves planned to release on a single platform all along.
Third party exclusives that were intended to release on multiple systems, but prevented from doing so as a direct result of exclusivity contracts, are anti-consumer.

Third party games that release on single platforms don't sell as many as third party games that release on multiple platforms.
Higher sales = more consumers who were able to purchase the game.

Did you even read my post?

Let me lay it out for you real slow this time.

If a game was only ever going to release on the console it eventually releases on, it's not anti-consumer.
If the game was intended to release on another platform but the other versions are significantly delayed or scrapped as a result of a business deal, that is anti-consumer.

In the first, you are creating something that is both a bonus to your existing customers and a draw for other customers to buy into, or switch to your platform, they however never had the possibility of playing the game on the system they already own, so nothing has been lost.
In the second, you are removing something from the customerbase of your competitor for personal gain, placing a financial burden on those customers to enjoy the game they would otherwise have been able to buy on the console they already own. Actions that remove options from the consumer, are anti-consumer.

How you can think taking away potential future products from a market base, is somehow pro-consumer, is beyond me. 

Did you even read my post?

Let me lay it out for you real slow this time.

If a game was only ever going to release on the console it eventually releases on, it's not anti-consumer.
If the game was intended to release on another platform but the other versions are significantly delayed or scrapped as a result of a business deal, that is anti-consumer.

In the first, you are creating something that is both a bonus to your existing customers and a draw for other customers to buy into, or switch to your platform, they however never had the possibility of playing the game on the system they already own, so nothing has been lost.
In the second, you are removing something from the customerbase of your competitor for personal gain, placing a financial burden on those customers to enjoy the game they would otherwise have been able to buy on the console they already own. Actions that remove options from the consumer, are anti-consumer.

How you can think taking away potential future products from a market base, is somehow pro-consumer, is beyond me. 

------------------

What in the world are you talking about? It's the developers decision to go 3rd party exclusive, they can do whatever the hell they want. If it results in them going out of business, they go out of business. This happens every where in the industry. And when most people talk about anti consumer, it's mostly PC gamers who don't want to buy consoles for games and of course there are PS4/XBO/Wii U owners that say that too. I'm not sure what definition of anti consumer you're talking about, but no one in the gaming industry sees it that way except for you. It literally comes down to people not wanting to buy more consoles. That's it.

Not really, unless it's a small studio, usually it's the publishers choice, or the higher-ups in the company that broker the deals for the end product.

If, for example, EA turned to one of their subsiduary development studios and said "that game we're working on, it's going to be a x exclusive", the developers don't get to say "no!! we want to make it multi platform!", at the same time, if EA said "its multiplatform", the developers can at-best, complain but ultimately, the publisher/studio management make the major descisions.

Regardless, I've stated now multiple times the differences between anti consumer and pro consumer practices, it isn't my problem if it doesn't sink in.

I don't understand the logic:
-If anything, not making a game at all is the only time it is anti-consumer
- Making a game, but limiting it to one platform is very much pro-consumer, because consumers will finally get the game they have been asking for. It might be anti-specific-platform, but the game still exists and the consumers are welcome to switch to the platform that has their games.

(To me it's like saying making "House of Cards" or "Game of Thrones" or "Homeland" is anti-consumer because it airs on a specific paid network. Meanwhile, we have three great series to enjoy immensely).