^ this. Can't stand the hardware / brand name cheerleaders. I'd prefer everybody have the option to play something. Who the hell actually wants exclusivity? Fanboys that's who.

No, you are oversimplifying the general points I have made. Yes, I can agree to an extent that consumers having the best and adequate option to get the product readily available. Unfortunately, for us, the world works with an economy and we as consumers are mutually exclusive to the industry given that we have a choice in making purchasing decisions.

Products are not made for free and most certainly are not given by loving and caring hearts of the producers, they expect a return and as "consumers" the only power we can dictate a product relevance is how much we are willing to go on our way to make our purchase - whether that product extends to exclusivity or not. In this particular case, the console which is ONE TIME purchase only. The real cost lies in what games to buy, having poorly made products could easily shift into purchasing a different or higher quality one. So it is no way indicative of how much you're willing to spend.

I have all 3 systems and a PC yet I only get a select amount exclusives for each system and the majority of multi-plat sales on the PC maximizing the value of my budget. The consoles only exist as platform holders in case a certain game of interest come, with AAA exclusives being of a higher priority regardless of system. Heck I probably spend less than the average single platform owner.

While I understand your points, what you're arguing is in the best interest of the consumer, however it completely different to the producer and having extended to multiple systems does give a wider consumer range BUT NOT NECESSARILY mean selling more. (Enslaved comes to mind).