I sure would be happy if Sony could release 4 great quality Uncharted per gen for me to play, but I understand it wouldn`t work out, so I`m totally fine with 1 entry and perhaps one big expansion that was cheap to produce per gen, and they making new IPs as most as possible. For me the number of titles for PS4 was enough even if less than PS3. On PS4 I would say I have liked a lot almost all their games while on PS3 some of the games weren`t to my liking.

There is no consumers obsession with big blockbusters. There is a big market for them, but companies are pushing it way more than what consumers are demanding. Best selling game on PS4 is a port of a PS3 game. The best selling game of all time is Minecraft. This gen the only games that sold more than 30 million copies in a single console are Mario Kart 8 and Animal Crossing New Horizons 

I'm not denying escapism is what make people get into games, but the assertion of high realism being more competent producing it makes no sense

Most people dont talk about specs and whatnot, indeed most of them dont even understand hardware specs unless they are PC gamers.

I'm not saying companies need to start halving their budgets and released smaller games, indeed I think there is quite important for some companies keep pushing boundaries as far as technology is concerned 

But I'm really not buying your argument they are spending more and more because it's what consumers likes the most. So far seems like multiplayer and accessibility are the main selling points of any game  that's why a game like The Last of Us 2 will hardly sell as much as Overwatch even if TLOU 2 has a much bigger budget 

So, if hemorrhaging money isn't making those games to sell anything more than smaller budget games, why some companies keep doing whatever they can to release much more risky games that maybe will not break even? 

It's just for reflection 

"but I understand it wouldn't work out"

It did work out last generation though. 

"they making new IPs as most as possible"

They are making the same amount of new IP's as last gen, with less total games overall.

The rest of your reasoning is just subjective. I can't argue with it, but I think you can understand where I'm getting from. 

No I like your point. But I think there is a huge difference in buying takeaway food every day and then saving up for that juicy Micheline star meal.

Or the number of people who watch trash TV (reality TV) and how much money that makes and how cheap it is to produce, but will still go out and pay £25 to go and watch the latest big blockbuster in cinema.

The smaller games tend to be a fine Dustin and can be found on any platform. The big hitters are different in the other hand. Its what separates these consoles from generic platforms and developers. The big hitters is what brings people into the ecosystem where you make your money on hardware, accessories, games, royalties, microtransactions etc.

The best selling game point, the game was a blockbuster. 

Nintendo are Apple. They can release shit and it will sell. There are the only company who gets away with pricing, remake of Remakes, crap online and still are golden. 

You don't need to look far. Watch YouTube reactions to GOW, Spidey, Horizon and you will see people eating up those trailers. Watching live streams you see people switch off and go meh when they see smaller titles. 

These big games then go beyond the games. You now have GOW comics, TLOU series, merchandising. These big games have their own life beyond games... Naturally as do fortnite and Minecraft, but those games are mostly one hit wonders, unlike your Halos, Mario's, Uncharteds.

You seem to have a very romanticized version of the facts. There is enough AAA games to keep everyone busy for a generation, nobody needs to buy "takeaway food" if they want to only get "refined food". Question is most of people still watching crappy TV because they find it enjoyable. In the same way, people play Fornite because it's fun, nobody cares if it doesn't have the best specs among online shooters because production value is not its selling point

I'm not denying big blockbusters have a insane hype value, but in this industry a game like Hollow Knight developed by only 3 programmers and created by crowdfunding managed to sell about as same of supposed big hitter, like Death Stranding. The disconnection in expenses vs revenue in gaming is just too high to ignore. More money spent on production don't translate in bigger appeal or bigger sales. Branding, marketing and even gameplay have much more impact than production specs could ever reproduce

So, I ask again? Why spending so much if it will not push sales? I can only think it's more a bout a long therm plan. Those studios want to increase the barriers to entry in gaming industry. And to be quite honest, they already succeeded, they are just even going further 

Look as we are talking about Fornite and Overwatch as if those were some kind of indie games, when both are games with already millionaire budgets from fucking Blizzard and Epic Games, just not as expensive as... I dont Know, Uncharted? 

If you want to release a competitive product you need a shit tons of money to back you up, there is no other way. Big studios knows if they keep releasing more and more expensive games they will be much less likely to see a surge of medium sized studios popping up to compete in their market space. 

They know games are still software, and in software department innovation, creativity, convenience and accessibility are the way to create a very high value proposition. Money can't make this up, so what to do? Artificially increase the budget of games, so you can lure your target audience with them. When the occasional indie hit the industry like a Storm (like Minecraft) then you just need enough money to buy it! 

I tend to enjoy a mix of AA and AAA games. I believe a mixture of both is very important. Lately iv been enjoying my time with the smaller titles than caring about the bigger titles. Jim Sterling had some interesting videos on the AAA industry, even admitting that the smaller AA games he favors more now. Believing that the AA market is full of better creativity, less anti consumer tactics like loot boxes and gambling mechanics and sold at a reasonable price etc.

I just started playing Subnauitca again and i can see every point Jim makes. Cheap budget title, full of creativity and orginialality, hundreds of hours of fun and no AAA anti consumer tactics. Plus the game looks beautiful. Not every game needs to play like a movie.

I would just say companies aren't dumb, and they go where the money is. So if they are focusing on AAA and putting every more money on those it is because that is where the money to be made is. Sure some smaller titles do big numbers but that is more of an exception than anything, most of the top sellers are big blockbusters (that is even per definition).

Nope not really. The gen Sony made more titles and sequels (PS3) the overall sales of SW was smaller than on PS4 when they made less sequels and total titles. It was already summarized here.

If they release half the number of total titles but about the same number of new IPs or at least same proportion it means they really are pushing for it as most as they can, as sure some titles will be sequels and some others are just series that doesn't make sense to finish to start another (like Gran Turismo and MLB).

Seems close? It's 139 games vs 63. That's close? 63 new IP's vs 30. That's close? Those numbers aren't close. And who cares if almost half the titles on both lists are new IP's which one gen has less than half as many games overall. And the dev time is taking longer by design, it's not a catch all excuse for lower output. GG could have put out a Killzone sequel in less time than it took them to make Horizon. SP could have done another Infamous or smaller type game in less time than it took them to make Ghosts. And no, I'm not saying they should have made those sequels instead of the new IP's, I am just using them as an example. There are plenty of devs who put out AA or smaller scale AAA titles in 2-3 years still. Sony however is focusing on blockbusters so those have even longer than normal development times. Which means less games, and means less risk. That's the issue.

Yes, we all know a AAA blockbuster game takes longer to make than other games. That wasn't the point. The point was Sony used to have a good balance of those types of games and others but are now focusing solely on developing the huge ones. Don't be surprised when the PS5 output is even less than PS4.

It looks like you ignored the word proportion. It was half the titles on PS3 and PS4, that means proportion is close, the risk of new IPs is close. Development time increased and that is why the total number of SW released decrease, but at the same time the quality, reception and sales increased enough to not only cover it but also make the total sales much higher and break records bringing a lot more profit. Not sure why you think that is a problem.

Yes the higher development title picked all companies, that is why most have put a lot less SW and some that tried to be stubborn had to change their ways (looking at you Assassins Creed yearly releases and the increase in studios for some other IPs to keep it year schedule).

The point is Sony is making what is best for them, while still supporting smaller games be it through second party or third party and also releases first party smaller scale games. PS5 launch had much more exclusives than PS4 even though PS4 was receiving big games until the end of its life. Astro`s Playroom, Sackboy adventure and many other aren`t AAA blockbuster as well.

First party, only a few, like Insomniac Games

But In the first 6-7 months they will have release the following:

- Destruction All Stars

- Demons Souls

- Astro’s Playroom

- Miles Morales

- Returnal

- Ratchet and Clank: Drift Apart

- Sackboy: A big Adventure 

And Kena coming in August.

I see some balance in less than a year.