Just stopped there. Do you think devs are agreeing to exclusivity just because they like Sony or MS better? They're getting a financial incentive. Unless they wound up making a dumb deal, one would presume exclusivity is actually beneficial. 

Hurting the industry?
When two companies agree on a deal for exclusivity, that means they are doing it willingly and are happy to do it.

It's just the fanboys that are hurting.

Pretty sure all 3 sell hardware at profits now.
Nintendo does so at big margins, while xbox and playstation do so at pretty small ones.

OP:
You also have to remember some 3rd party exclusives arn't because of moneyhatting.
Some titles just dont sell that much, and if they think the cost of porting to xbox isn't worth the extra sales, they dont develope that port.
There are legit "3rd part exlusives" like this out there.

Boooooooom! thats the smack down :)

Certain games, wouldn't be worth porting too.
Like some games are too demanding to be ported back to say a PS4 or a Switch, which would be too weak to run said games, and look/play decently.

This was also one of my first thoughts reading the OP.

Which "3rd party exclusives" are we even talking about.

At this point there's only 5 3rd party exclusive games/franchises left in the industry and the clock is probably ticking on several of those, lol.

At one point

GTA, Tekken, Metal Gear Solid, Dragon Quest, Tomb Raider, Persona, Monster Hunter, Fatal Frame, Ninja Gaiden, etc. etc. were exclusive to one console platform, today that's no longer the case for any of them. There's barely anything left that is console exclusive. 

Some Final Fantasy games? Bayonetta? Beyond that, there's not a whole lot left. 

There is so much wrong with your post here Jumpin.

1) Explain how having a larger market means less chance to shine?

2) It Pushes the hardware manufacturers to make even better hardware, thats what people should be doing, buying the best value, not buying hardware because a bunch of money hatted IPs. 

3) It also pushes console manufacturers to make even more 1st party games, instead of getting only accouple a year, some years are dryer than others. 

..and the nail in the coffin with your response is Pokemon is not a 3rd party Exclusive. The fact people actually liked your post worries me. The sad part is you think Xbox clones Sony is delusional. They ALL steal from eachother. The issue we have is both Sony and MS aren't innovating, they just release the same old console with more power. 

Bottom line: If you remove companies from paying to keep games off other platforms, it means console manufacturers actually have to try harder in creating better consoles to push ahead, and it also pushes them to make even more 1st party games, that's what deviants the console brands, 1st party, should not be 3rd party games.

It literally says "hypothetical" 

Also if a company invests into the development, sure, no issues being exclusives, if a company slides a $50 to keep a game off competition consoles, thats taking a short cut. Thats my point. Use the money to create or buy more studios to build a 1st party empire instead of hurting the competition by taking away games form other platforms. 

I 100% agree with you. If a company invests into the development of the game, that's perfectly fine. Bayonetta is a good example of this. Bayo wouldn't exist without Nintendo.

Also SF5 was moneyhatted, just like Tomb Raider for Xbox. Don't read into the corporate lies. Capcom was always going to make another Street Fighter game just like Crytal Dynamic was with Tomb Raider. They will sell it to the media that they helped, but both Sony and Xbox had nothing to do with the development of the games, they just gave them money in advance to lock them down.

Its easy. If the developer can run the game on its recommended specs. Best example would be PC/PS/XB, all similar hardware, and they can all run eachothers games. Its up to the console manufacturer to create options with the hardware to receive more games, much like what Sony have done with VR, if a system cannot support the game than it simply doesn't come out on it. Removing moneyhatting, increases manufacturers to drive bigger and better hardware.

Best example: Look what happened to Sony when they tried to control VR by building an exclusive garden? It failed, it should have released on PC day one where more gamers can access more VR games, increasing more content on PS VR2 and more content on PC VR. Excluding 1st party games which is what deviants the hardware, like Horizon can only be played on PS VR2 and Half Like Alyx on Steam VR.

No one is asking to release RE4 Remake on old Mobile phone tech, and their is no excuse to not have RE4 Remake missing one of the 3 main platforms PC/PS/XB systems. If the Switch can run it and its not too hard to port across, sure. The only thing stopping 3rd party games from releasing is money. Its a cheap and effortless way to selling hardware.

I believe all companies can buy whoever they want if they care enough. Nintendo, Sony and MS can buy any 3rd party studios if they really want to, the issue is they dont need to because they can just pay to keep games off other platforms instead.

Steam just broke another record of 35m concurrent users, Steam heavily relies on 3rd party games, not exclusives. 

O_O................ that in no way is a coherent response to what I said. 

We know these deals are generally beneficial to third party devs or else they would not be pursuing them. So in a hypothetical world without third party exclusives they would be worse off. 

What you said after the also makes no sense either, but I'm only going to address one bad point at a time.