I think you missed the point. The developments costs were out of control.

With that said, 3rd parties get revenue from the manufacturer if their game is bundled. They dont give it away out of kindness for the other company. xD

Hollywood movies have mocies that end up costing shit tons and when it backfires they don't come out bitching at the consumers for not buying or seeing their movie like the gaming industry does.  They They don't start posting stats about how many lost sales they supposedly had due to piracy, ect.  

They take responsiblity and fire who needs to be fired, cancels sequels, ect.  Look at movie like John Carter.  I don't recal Disney compmlaining to us consumers or coming out with a statement like "if you don't buy this movie we wont' make anymore movies" or some bullshit that gaming devs say.   No they canceled John Carter 2.  And moved on to other franchises.  They took a risk with JOhn Carter and it backfired.  They likely won't be as quick to make risks again.  They still will use big budgets on other movies lilke Avengers 2 and Pirates 5.  But less likely to spend 100's of millions on a new franchise.

Oh and lets not forget that Tomb Raider is probably one of the best selling in its franchise history.  So tell me, where did the budgeting come from.  What genius thought, hey lets spend "X" amount of money on this game and in order to be a success it needs to sell double the amount the game has EVER sold in the history of that games beings.  It's retarded.  The person who made that decisions or person, should all be fired and sent back to elementary school to learn how to count.

would you say its worth owning the console this early?

Well, like I said, I don't think the world needs to be particularly "big." I just don't want the A to B outside the tombs to be only through a narrow path.

They don't have to cost that much, but when you are simulating a person that can use a bow and fire arms, combined with platforming, puzzle solving, in a wide variety of environments you don't see a low budget game. 

If you use 8 bit graphics like minecraft you don't end up there.  That is true...

Uncharted 1 was about $100,000,000 but Uncharted 2 was about $20,000,000 because the core engine was the same...  It costs big money to build these types of game engines because they are extremely complex inside.  People complain about sequels but this is how investors make their money in thegames industry.  The first one "hopefully" breaks even, and subsequent sequels give the the return they are looking for.

In the end, I think gamers want both types of games...  Games that cost $100,000,000 because they are innovating through immersiveness and realism, and low budget games that innovate by adding new gameplay elements to well understood game techniques.  Games like Minecraft, Braid, Journey, etc.

They probably had an average selling price of $40...  That's only $240,000,000...

The cost to build the game was probably around $100,000,000...  Then, borrowing costs, administrative costs, sales, marketing, support, running servers, patches, platform ports, etc...

$240,000,000 doesn't go that far...

Investors looking for ROI's as multipliers... 2x, 3x, 10x, 20x....

Best case scenario they are probably only making .25x...  Why would I put my investment money there?  When I can go and invest in other industries and get 2x, 5x, and 10x the return and not have to front so much.  Gamers don't realize this is about money...  If a solid game like this can only make investors .25x more than their investment they have no incentive to stick in this industry. 

There is no incentive in this industry for a AAA game to be innovative.  Innovation costs more money and there is very little guaranttee that investors will see the money back.  I have a lot of investments.  I don't touch the games industry (even though I love playing games) because as an investor there is no money in it for me.