Okay now you're just sealioning.

I'll take the lack of explanation after being asked three times about it as you not knowing how to explain it then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

I apologize for losing my cool there but I really think you're acting poorly here. You stated something and I asked you to explain it since I was unsure what you meant by it. You getting offended by that is ridiculous when that is a completely normal part of conversation and isn't "sealioning".

Okay, if you're being genuine here and I've mischaracterized your intent, then that's my bad and I apologize.

My overarching point, best as I can explain, was simply that in most cases (though certainly not all) games don't need cutting edge graphics to sell well if they are otherwise appealing, so while there is a place for games that are stunning to look at, (GTA6 or Sony's flagships for instance) pursuing high end spectacle doesn't seem to be a sustainable path for most devs/publishers these days, with budgets the way they've gotten.

That's all I meant.

Except spider 2 made a profit.  Ratchet made a profit.  We need to be clear here, the "problem" was those games didn't make enough for investors.  The problem isn't modern games making a profit, money is being made.

The new age investment view is a company needs to be growing NTO and profit margins on an indefinite annual basis.  This has so many negative consequences (short and long term) and is the model that is unsustainable.  

A company that generates a steady profit and grows with inflation is uninteresting to most investors because people want faster money via greed.  Hence stagnant wages, layoffs, cheap products, mtx.  

Don't know if we can really call Ratchet "AAA" though, can we? And Spiderman's one of a relative few IPs big enough to guarantee a return of over ten million, a luxury not a lot of franchises can claim.

I agree with the rest though, the notion of "anything but infinite growth is a failure" is insanity.

Fair point on ratchet and I honestly don't know the figures.  I just know with spider 2 people keep saying it was 300 million to develop via data mining while ignoring the same data said it has a 33% profit margin not including DLC and the inevitable PC release.  We live in an odd world when $100,000,000 in profit is bad.  

Except spider 2 made a profit.  Ratchet made a profit.  We need to be clear here, the "problem" was those games didn't make enough for investors.  The problem isn't modern games making a profit, money is being made.

The new age investment view is a company needs to be growing NTO and profit margins on an indefinite annual basis.  This has so many negative consequences (short and long term) and is the model that is unsustainable.  

A company that generates a steady profit and grows with inflation is uninteresting to most investors because people want faster money via greed.  Hence stagnant wages, layoffs, cheap products, mtx.  

Don't know if we can really call Ratchet "AAA" though, can we? And Spiderman's one of a relative few IPs big enough to guarantee a return of over ten million, a luxury not a lot of franchises can claim.

I agree with the rest though, the notion of "anything but infinite growth is a failure" is insanity.