Welcome to the 1990s

These were used in VR Cafes. Yes VR Cafes.

SEGA and Atari had some attempts in the 90s. "but VR now is better" yes and and a PS5 is more powerful than a Genesis, So?

I don't think my response was hysterical.

As for Returnal...

1. Yes, and there are plenty of niche games. Like I brought up, Octopath Traveler. Not a whole lot of classic JRPGs like that, even among indie games.

2. Yes, but still there are plenty of new IPS, and a fair number of them are successful. It is more risky than using an established franchise, but it's simply not something that's so rare that doing it should elicit gasps of awe.

3. No... because your argument was about risk. Just because male games tend to sell better does not mean that any time you make a game with a female character you are taking a risk. It simply means you are not using the most common path to success, and there are reasons for doing so beyond simply taking a risk. We'll stick with Octopath Traveler. For every old school sprite based JRPG there are at least 5 shooting games that will sell more copies. Does that mean any this was a brave risk that demonstrates how much Nintendo values developer freedom?

4. 

I just gave a few recent examples. I'm sorry, I didn't know I was supposed to list every one. But... Groundhog Day, Edge of Tomorrow, Source Code, The Endless,

, Majora's Mask,

, Christmas Everyday, Happy Death Day,

, Xena Warrior Princess,

, Buffy the Vampire.

Time loops are not a new idea in fiction. Kind of based off Nietzche's idea of eternal recurrence. Those are the pieces of media I've seen that invoke the idea of time loops in a pretty direct way. There are others that sort of do but not as directly (Naruto, Harry Potter, South Park, and Mass Effect or Dr. Strange for instance). I'm sure there are many other examples I didn't name (I'd be shocked if there isn't a Star Trek or Simposon's episode of that). https://www.imdb.com/list/ls069145438/ I'm sure it might add some other quirk (not watching the video cause I may buy it), but the timeloop aspect is the main one they've advertised to potential buyers, so (unless there is something so divisive in the story that it would turn people off when word of mouth spread) that's the part that would be relevant to how risky the game is.

More importantly though, even if all of these examples of time loops in media didn't exist, so what? Why would this make it risky as a narrative element? Are there people that are just would hate the concept and would not buy the game because it has time loops (even though as demonstrated it's actually pretty popular in narrative ways). The fact that others have not done this exact story in this exact way doesn't mean it's exceptionally risky. More broadly, doing things that are not the norm is not inherently brave or risky.

As for your assessment of my personality and motivation, you can keep those to yourself. If the argument is flawed, explained why it's flawed. I am addressing your arguments and not making any statements about you, and expect the same in return.

5. I guess charging full price for games is brave and risky now...

Really the argument boils down to the fact that this is a new IP and a style of game that is popular in indie gaming but hasn't been tested in the AAA space. And sure that's a lot riskier than GTA VI will be, but to me it's not so exceptionally rare that it is noteworthy or it says something significant about a publisher willing to publish it.

Which leads me again to the point that you're claiming I don't have. My point is that you have given no intelligible way to identify what counts as risky. Without that, you cannot support your claim that Sony is particularly noteworthy in their commitment to risk, bravery, and freedom, and no real discussion can be had.

So, can you explain how we tell when a game is brave and free? If so, how did you determine that Sony produces more of these types of games than other developers?

Took the words right out of my mouth.

I feel the exact same way. When gaming was in its infancy. It was all about companies trying new things to increase sales, to win people over. That was when Nintendo and Sega battled it out. Now that the industry has been built, companies don't need to try new things anymore, they know that there are paying customers (consumers) out their now. Unfortunately for us, the business directions have changed due to this. The current mentality is "Why build a new IP or create new gameplay designs, when you can easily use an already existing IP or its formula which is cheaper and easier and still sell" 

I can see where you're coming from but I disagree on many things here. Sony is among the least risk-friendly companies, they hardly take any risks in general. All their blockbusters follow the same formula and innovate little to nothing. So TLOU2 has a female protagonist, cool but that's not very risky when female leads have been around for 30 years now. That said, yes, there are more male lead characters by far, nobody denies that, but still having a female lead is nothing innovative anymore and deserves no special recognition.

Sony, Microsoft, EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Take 2, basically all big western developers/publishers hate taking risks and rather churn out one predictable formulaic game after another. Granted that exceptions exist everytime but they are just that. Exceptions. Very rare ones even. I'd argue Capcom took a much greater risk with the perspective change in Resident Evil VII than anything Sony did in the past two decades. Don't even get me started on Nintendo.

And to some extent there is a valid reason behind this because it makes the management behind the curtains predictable. If publishers know that certain types of games usually achieve certain amounts of sales then they can easily extrapolate how much money and resources they need and therefore assume predictable business outcomes and therefore are able to maintain stable jobs and work environments for their employees. On a company level you would want to maintain job security for your workforce, wouldn't you? So basically, many blockbuster games that customers buy in masses are one major reason why this industry keeps being healthy. If you want to be creative you have every means to be so but you shouldn't expect high sales. Creative and/or innovative games are more like prestige projects.

Now I don't see why you put so much weight on game awards because they are a terrible metric. Other users have already said how useless they are so I won't repeat.

Agree but in saying that I believe gamepass will allow developers more freedom on creating that risk in order to create something that's different from what everyone is used to, instead of worrying whether it will make profit. That's only because every member on gamepass will try the game at least once. I am. Hoping to see more devloeprs taking more risk this gen

That The Last of Us 2's biggest controversies were of """forced diversity""" (which is at best a value that the developers have always represented in the series, in the foreground since "Left Behind", and in the background since the original game) and a protagonist swap that people didn't like (something that was done in popular games back in 2001 and 2004) shows how little innovation or risk was actually taken by the game.

If anything, these controversies showcase how stupid a portion of the original fanbase was. Which isn't too particularly surprising with how much people put a thumb up their ass over a fairly barebones - if well executed - story. 

And yea, I guess that casting as wide a net as possible only to alienate a portion later on with a sequel is somewhat "risky", but only in the sense that the original was so safe to begin with. 

I can't say much to VR gaming, not having tried it myself. As far as I understand, that also wasn't the point of the OP. It is quite possible, that Sony puts more innovation in the VR space. As far as I read, people saw a lot of innovation in Half-life Alyx using thee tech in interesting ways. So yeah, my post isn't including VR as I cannot sayy anything about it and it is possible that this is indeed a place for more creativity.

I forgot Kinect was released in 2010, the bias of last generation made me forgot early in the 10's we had another Gen. Kinect was indeed great, it's unfortunate it never got many market space. I used kinetic technology in a academic project for a computer vision, and it worked nicely, but if my only use for the technology was a non gaming project... well we can see why it never attracted many devs. Kinect falls in the same problem as VR, it's a more niche market (by the time only Kinect users from 360 + early adopters of One)

If you design mechanics exclusively for those customers you would be alienating every other consumer, not a issue for first parties, but I doubt it's equally attractive for third parties

And I agree this is the exact problem with both Kinect and PSVR, while Wii succeed. But not even Nintendo is willing to create a console with a high focus on motion controls anymore, mass appeal trumps innovation every day in business and this time I can't really blame anybody, if you want something newer and exclusive you will need to pay the premium price

Interesting, I was a late 90's baby, so never got into VR arcades before. I've played though some10-minutes shooting VR games on arcades, so I was aware of their existence. Some 8 to 9 years algo I played them again (this time closer to what modern gaming looks like), but it was  in a event about VR/XR. PSVR was my first touch in a home-based VR technology used for gaming 

In this case I will refrain the creativity and innovative side and call PSVR (as a piece of technology) only bold, quirky and distinct in current market space, but serves the same purpose. It provides a non standard experience compared to other gaming mediums when it comes to gameplay even for the most standard genres let's say platformers for instance. Even if the technology is old, innovation on software side persists