I've actually done more than my fair share of work for video game companies over the years, including some giants (and their founders), and the general feeling amongst many game developers who care about the quality of their products (as opposed to developers who only care about pumping out game-to-sell after game-to-sell) is that they really wish they didn't have to make their products cross-platform either. They do because the market demand is too high, and the companies that are traded publicly really have no choice in the matter because if they didn't it would be a guaranteed shareholder lawsuit, but even most privately held companies don't have a choice -- even if they, hypothetically, didn't care about profits, the drop in profits would lead to a hostile takeover from a healthier developer (usually EA -- they gobble up privately-owned developers to the point that it's kept some of my clients awake at night, even big names).
The reason they care is the obvious one: Their games suffer as a result. Ports from any console to PC, or vice-versa, take a big hit, and limit what either version can do in terms of functionality. It doesn't just affect console games -- Your PC game is extremely limited because the developers also plan to make console versions and need them to be comparable enough for the process to be cost-effective. (Not many PC games truly use 64 bit architecture, for instance, despite having the ability to do so for ages. Yes, most games will use it if you have it, but will also run without it just fine, because it wasn't programmed specifically to take advantage of it. Often even when a game is released solely onto PC but without actual 64 bit, it's because they're in talks to port it to consoles.) While it's less noticeable, it also limits the quality of console games -- if they plan to release a PC version, the functionality of the console at issue can never be fully utlilized. Same goes for releasing both Xbox and PS versions of a game. I don't know Xbox very well, but that's why some of the very best titles on PS are PS exclusives -- Obviously the development teams should be given full credit, but they're also allowed to run with the entire panoply of features and architecture present within the system they're working with, and not weighed down by anything else (look at most Naughy Dog games, anything from Team ICO but especially SotC, most of the God of War series, and out of the Souls series, Demon Souls takes the best advantage of the PS3's architecture by far even if they were still getting into the groove of things from a technical standpoint).
I love me some PC, but unfortunately, most PC titles that attempt to take full advantage of what PCs have to offer tend to be strategy games, which as much as I love them, can't really show off the full power of a PC -- they just use that extra juice to throw extra units (or in 4x, extra areas you and your opponents have conquered) onto the map without bogging your system down signficantly. I'd kill for a Mass Effect or Dragon Age game to be PC exclusive, since they're meant to be played on PC anyway in my opinion, and could really benefit from a PC's extra horsepower. But as with prior titles, while I've never worked with Bioware I can guarantee you that ME Andromeda's PC version is being watered down signficantly from what it COULD do because it just wouldn't be cost-effective to create a PC version and a console version -- So we'll get 1 version that runs on all 3, with the option to tweak a bit for PC, as usual. As awesome as Skyrim was (Oblivion was cool but a bit of a letdown after Morrowind, for me), think how awesome it would have been if they weren't also creating console versions at the same time.
And again, these aren't just my thoughts -- I've heard them time and time again through my career, from some of the biggest names in the industry. But they are businesses, first and foremost. One thing I've commonly heard is it would be great if there were only 1 platform to play, but that still wouldn't take care of the PC to console problem.
I'm not at all trying to express any bias one way or another in this post. I'm an avid PC gamer and avid console gamer. Took my first PC apart at age 3. Built my first at age 5 (I did not put that first one, at age 3, back together again -- and paid hell for it -- it was 1983 so computers were a bit more expensive). Been playing console games since my neighbor got a NES before Super Mario even came out (it was just Mario then -- and it sucked in comparison to the more famous Super Mario that later came out). I enjoy playing some games on PC, and others on console. I enjoy exclusives not because I like the thought of denying someone else the opportunity to play, but because the quality ratchets up quite noticeably (usually) compared to other titles of the time. I might be the only avid PC gamer who was happy to see that Bloodbourne was going to be PS4-exclusive.
And, despite all this, I agree with the above poster's statement that "i certainly don't think saying you have to buy a certain system in order to even play a specific game is a good argument for the worth of that system." I've yet to meet a game, 1 sole game, that's worth both its cost and the cost of a $400 to $600 USD system. There are certainly some amazing exclusives out there, but not enough to warrant buying a console if you're not otherwise a console gamer. Not even The Last of Us or Shadows of the Colossus.
The above was prepared at my direction for medical reasons.