There is no consumer reason to push for exclusives, beyond thinking they're needed to keep your platform alive. I think any platform dependent on that is eventually going to die anyway, because it needs to bring other value than gatekeeping content, and my point was that I think consoles do have other reasons, so caring about exclusives is silly.
How is it gatekeeping content when it's the platform holder's
OWN games!? They are not obligated to put their own software on other systems simply because of crybabies on said systems who either can't afford another console or don't want to.
And if we're talking about 3P exclusives, how do you presume that 3P game's state of existence as not having the platform holder's involvement? Games like Dead Rising 3 or Street Fighter V wouldn't have happened (or would have taken significantly longer to happen) if it weren't for Microsoft and Sony/SIE offering Capcom a helping hand, respectively. And in exchange for doing so, they got those games as exclusive to their system.
Due to that, the gaming market got two games it otherwise might not have gotten, or would have taken significantly longer to get, and potentially at a lower bar of quality. That's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how exclusives (1P and 3P) can often be beneficial to the market and customers, but it's not as catchy or stylish as repeating the usual "exclusives are anti-consumer" talking points that get peddled around.
When you limiting your game's reach to one platform, you have to accommodate your budget for having less potential audience, and the monetary support they're getting from console makers clearly isn't enough because each gen since the 360/PS3 we've been seeing less of them. Most games are opting for multi-plat releases (even if releasing to some later), the tools to make games are trying to scale better for releasing on multiple platforms, and you can stagger release dates for other platforms if you lack the resources to hit all at once.
Look, 3P exclusives aren't the only type of exclusive, but later on you start conflating the two and I think
Shmunter
did a pretty good job addressing those and some other points you bring up here. But to touch on some of the things you just mentioned...
For one, it's a bit foolish to assume a game having a larger budget is inherently tied to it being an exclusive or not, or to even assume a larger budget is a good thing. There are MANY 3P multiplats with much smaller budgets than even some of Nintendo's exclusives, let alone SIE's. And, for games where the budgets are large while being multiplatform, you have the issue where many end up playing it very safe creatively, so as not to scare off big chunks of the audience they need to make the budget back.
Generally speaking, if you have a 3P multiplat and an exclusive with similar budget, you're likely to get more creative freedom from the exclusive because, in a way, it having a smaller target customer base actually forces it to do things at the creative level to stand out better in the market. Since platform holders also use exclusives as artistic marks of achievement for their systems within the market, that also influences the likelihood of them pushing in more creative areas vs. a similarly budgeted 3P multiplat.
Nintendo has no problem beating top sales because they easily have the strongest brands of any company in the entire industry, Mario is still the most recognized character in video games, and they develop their games on a lower budget so they get higher profits as well to sustain not going to other platforms. However, they would still sell more going on other platforms, evidenced by Niantic reskinning their own game that was niche at best with Pokemon branding, and it became a worldwide phenomon again akin to Pokemon's height during Red/blue to Silver/Gold era because so many people have smartphones.
Nintendo having among the strongest IP brands in gaming doesn't mean they're the
only ones who have strong IP brands in gaming, even among platform holders. Which means many of the reasons you're using to justify them having exclusives, can just as
easily apply to SIE or Valve (and yes, Valve DOES have exclusives on Steam, such as DOTA2 and Counterstrike 2, and upcoming Deadlocked).
If you want to imply SIE can't do it because of costs vs. sales, keep in mind a good chunk of their budgets for AAA releases are due to costly licenses and redundant outsourcing (such as some dubious consultancy groups demanding $10+ million dollars to provide mediocre input). Those are things SIE can resolve and thus bring costs down significantly. Meanwhile, their big games are still doing 10+ million, 20+ million on average and at high/medium revenue per copy. Most of Nintendo's big releases are actually in similar territory, and may have notably higher profit margins (due to costing less to make), but most also don't sell for $70 at launch, or have the MTX pipeline of SIE's releases, so it's not as clear-cut ahead as you might think.
The idea that they or any other company that has a use for exclusives would "sell more" by being on other platforms, doesn't mean doing so flippantly is a good idea. You bring up Nintendo, but don't mention that their mobile presence is wholly based around offshoots and spinoffs of their mainline games, i.e they aren't porting their console/handheld titles to mobile because they know that would basically kill massive amounts of demand for their own hardware. So, they have 3P companies make various spinoffs and fans on mobile are then enticed to get a Nintendo system to play the "real" versions of those games.
It's a strategy SIE should've employed for PC (at least for non-GAAS titles), but they screwed up. They may be course-correcting now but it remains to be seen how (or by how much).
Microsoft isn't doing anything that unique this gen (or last) beyond Game Pass being one good service, so they have little unique value over Sony, and before they started porting to PS5...their new batch of acquisition-ed exclusives weren't moving the needle either. They tarnished their brand since the Xbox One with the attempted drm-check-in, they aren't competing on power anymore since they have no answer to the PS5 Pro, and they aren't innovating on their online ecosystem that made the 360 a unique offering vs. PS3 back in the day when they were the closest to being competitive.
Well, yes, I'd agree Microsoft is basically a non-entity at this point, when it comes to being a platform holder. They technically still are one, but their brand in the traditional console market is dead in most of the world and even dying in the US & UK, their only two strongholds. That's partly why they're trying to pivot on the hardware front into a more PC-like business strategy.
However, it's worth pointing out that even if Xbox as a brand was gradually declining since the very late 360 years, it didn't torpedo right off the bat. The XBO didn't immediately flop, especially in the US & UK where it stayed pretty competitive with PS4 up through 2016, and that's even after the "TV TV TV", DRM etc. controversies. Their "Tier 2, Tier 3" release strategies for other markets definitely hurt them in foreign markets as the gen went on, but it was a gradual erosion over a period of years. When they first started porting games to PC, that was locked to the Microsoft/Windows Store exclusively, which isn't a popular spot for PC gaming anyhow. Therefore, the impact to XBO wasn't significant, tho it did gradually grow.
Ironically it's when they started porting Day 1 to Steam when the damage to their console brand would accelerate.
Microsoft is just another x86 AMD box, with Discord integration because Discord is better than their own social service they've done nothing to improve, a not good user interface filled with ads, they've been more conservative with improving their controller vs Sony, and their games are charting on PSN in the past months...because exclusives would never save them, people would rather play them on other ecosystems like Sony or Valve's. Nintendo carves its own market because the form factor of their device itself is unique vs the other 2.
OK, all of this might apply to Microsoft...but we're not just talking about them when speaking of exclusivity. We're also talking about SIE (PlayStation) and Nintendo, and even Valve to an extent. The reason why exclusivity no longer works for Microsoft, doesn't mean those reasons are at play for other platform holders. The damage they've done to their console brand is exactly why they're taking the multiplatform approach they are doing.
With SIE, I would say the combination of COVID lockdowns and shortages enabled shortsighted shareholders to erroneously push into the direction of expansive multiplatform, including many more PC ports, which didn't need to really be the case. More cross-gen releases would've sufficed, since in some cases we've seen PS4 versions of 1P releases sell more than the PC variant.
In other cases, like with Helldivers 2, we know that a somewhat large portion of Steam buyers also had PS5s, but opted to buy on Steam due to a variety of factors. Those were lateral sales, at best, not additive ones. In fact if you think about it, a good chunk of multiplatform sales can be called lateral, considering a good number of gamers have more than one platform.
So, if they have a PC, a PlayStation, and an Xbox, chances are if they
REALLY want a given 3P release, they would simply buy it on the platform it's available at, even if it were exclusive to that platform...because they very likely already have that system! And if for some arbitrary reason they refuse to buy it where it's available, then they didn't really want the game in the first place (assuming they know it's not a timed exclusive), despite likely claims otherwise.