On the quoted post you where just talking about ONE X and Pro, so I just talked about them.

Texel was a typo, I meant triangles, or polygons if you prefer. What I meant with the vegetation is that the character models don't get changed between low and high settings (maybe on ultra they do, but not always), just their textures do. To save on polygons there will instead be less grass or other vegetation or their models are simplified. At least that's what I got the last time I asked a modeler (about 2 years ago)

I bet sony and Nintendo thinks otherwise,both companies earn a huge amount with there sp tripple a budget games.

Companies like EA just absolutely suck and are anti consumer.

Fifa alone makes them millions.

The title itself is enough to know what to expect.

Videogames are too expensive to make? Yea, of course not. If that would be the case nobody would make them, duh!

This deliberate phrasing to ensure the outcome of this witty judgmental disclosure. Of course companies target for steady profit. They re not charity. Instead of adressing the real underlying issues it is just another pointing, demonizing finger.

I understand. You have to cater to your fanbase. Correctly phrased it would get a little difficult to suck up to the audience. "Has making games become increasingly costlier, consequently increasing the risks involved?" An easy to answer question for sure, a short google search, no extensive and exhausting two weeks research, but the results are closely similar: some loose sheets with some colory lines drawn them.

It also gives an answer to why big companies focus on a smaller number of projects. The difference of 5 10 20 million investment to 50 100 200 million should be obvious to even the greatest math doofus.

Ah ok, yeah that makes sense in relation to the X and Pro. Vegetation absolutely does not need more polygons than character models. A good character model will be over 3k polygons (four sided until the game engine splits them up into tris, which doubles the count) even in the PS3/360 era. Up until last gen, trees, grass, and other vegetation was mostly comprised of alphamaps (Flat 1 dimensional polygons with a double sided texture). In a game engine vegetation usually doesn't take up much processing power, because from a distance the models are low poly, and up close they are rarely high poly. When making art for your game vegetation doesn't take long because you just have to make three or four trees, and then let whatever program you are using copy them 5,000 times. The same thing goes for grass and flowers. 

TL/DR: Vegetation is a breeze, and the thing you make the new hire do. Character models are the thing you put your veteran modeler on. 

Yet people say this very thing all the time as a defense for the terrible DLC and microtransaction practices.  That's why the video exists.  If it was that obvious, no one would make the argument.  Even the greatest logical doofus can see that.

Lootboxes and DLC have nothing to do with their bottom lines or their level of charity.  These companies make their investment back with the base games alone usually with 2 million sales at 60$.  A game like Star Wars Battlefront II is going to hit that number before the E3 trailer is uploaded to youtube.  At that point, everything earned is pure profit, including DLC and MT's.  

Let's get real here - there's about as much "risk" in games like Call of Duty and Star Wars and Assassin's Creed and Lord of the Rings as there's risk in water not being wet.  What you're arguing is a logical fallacy.  Or, better put, turning on the video and covering your ears, shutting your eyes and shouting "WRONG."

Visceral and Bioware had more issues with EA's corporate engine, than Frostbite.

Given enough time and training both projects would have even been fine.