Glad to see you accept fluff isn't free and does cost money.  

And you are right, fluff isn't the majority of cost but it is a great place to start.  Getting rid of exclusives is another.  

But its a gigantic step-up if you compair it with the monster hunter games currently on the Switch.
You can tell the world, depth and complexity, along with graphics are much higher than in say Monster Hunter Rise.

Monster Hunter Worlds sold over 25m copies.
This showed capcom theres a market for a more expensive Monster Hunter game, even if your going to selling it to PS/XB/PC players instead of nintendo ones.

Yeah I hope Switch 2 can play it (and not at too much of a lower resolution, compaired to PS5/XSX/PC).

All the shows you is even with 25 million sold last time around, Capcom was not willing to make a monstrous graphical upgrade for Wilds. 

Switch 2 probably played a role, the fact that none of these Japanese studios really want $300 million type budgets anyway is going be another issue. 

I think a lot of these Japanese studios, even the bigger ones, are basically at the max or near max amount they can spend on any single game, or at least at the max that they would want to. The Japanese studios basically maxxed themselves out with the PS4.

Spending more on graphics doesn't exponentially grow your game sales, it's not like you can double the graphics and increase sales by even 25%. At some point people just stop caring and graphics whores are just small segment of the overall industry. 

Graphics will require AI tools moving forward to reduce cost. No different than the pharma industry building out predictive modeling.

Industry never goes flat, it just changes.

The modern kids who are into gaming don't even give that much of a shit about graphics. They are the ones that drive Minecraft, Fortnite, Animal Crossing, Switch, etc. sales these days.

Nobody cares that much outside of internet echo chambers about graphics, if they did the top 5 games every year should be the ones with the best graphics ... that isn't the case at all. The Switch should be the worst selling console on the market, it's by far the best selling one. GTAV is a PS3 game on steroids it has no business still selling a decade+ after its release, nor does Mario Kart 8, nor does Minecraft, yet these games still run circles around every current seller. All the COD games are still built to run on last gen consoles. 

That Avatar game that was hyped for graphics made one month at a no.6 debut (not even top 5) and then fell out of the charts like a rock and it had promotion from Sony themselves and based on one of the most popular movie IP out there. Starfield didn't do shit to move XBox consoles and quickly also fell off the face of the planet sales wise, guess not even a $400+ million budget can buy you a top seller.

You seem to argue as though parameters are mutually exclusive, which they aren't.  "Graphics do not make a game worth buying" versus "graphics being an important part of the gaming experience" can both be true statements.  Balance is what makes a great game that sells.  

It wasn't really a graphically wow peice though.
I say something like Alan Wake, if you wanted to use a xbox title with great graphics, could be mentioned.
Honestly dont think Starfield is in the same league (if your compairing to the avatar game).

And I agree with you, that graphics arn't at a point where theres insane benefits from chaseing the highest tier of graphics.
Does it help a game like Cyberpunk sell? without a doubt though.
Avatar looking the way it does, probably didn't cost it any sales either.... people will always want good looking games.

Starfields problems arn't its graphics, its just the story and gameplay arn't great.... decent/good at best.
So it came and went, and was forgotten.

I would add that graphics do matter.  RE4 sold 7 million....  and is fundamentally the same game as the ps2 version.  So why did people buy it?  Because it looks amazing.  And it is a great game.  

Personally I love ps5 and PC graphics, I'm not in a rush to a jump anytime soon.  But graphics do matter.  

Edit 

Also helps RE4 remake launched on everything and didn't have fluff.  

Fingers crossed RE1 and CV get the same love.  

Well for one, RE4 Remake isn't "cutting edge graphics" exactly, it's a game that runs fine on a bog standard 11 year old PS4 and potato PCs and even the iPad. It even runs on an iPhone even though probably iPhone 16 or 17 will run it better, but the point is it's playable even on mobile hardware. 

How many of those copies did RE4 sell at full price? 

Probably half at best? 

Every time I looked on the Steam page it's available for like $20-$29. 

That also has to be part of the equation, some of these developers are selling games sure, much of the sales are coming when the game is heavily discounted because everyone and their grandma knows if you wait a few months you can often times get a game for 25%-50% off and if you wait even a bit longer than that, the discount will be even higher. 

No wonder Capcom's own president is crying about the price of games being too low. Their so-called "showcase" next-gen title should be Monster Hunter Wilds, that game looks like a PS4 game on moderate steroids. 

Alan Wake is definitely one of the better looking games out there, though they "cheat" quite a bit with limited scope/environments (game is basically a forest and a small town lol) ... and it didn't even chart in the top 20 for its release month. Which kind of proves the point. 

Starfield is an example of the problem with AAA big budget development ... you spend a ton of money but a few things are off and the game is likely a disaster for Microsoft at this point money wise. $400 million+ budget probably needed 12-15 million in sales, they really were probably anticipating 20+ million in sales. I don't think they're even close to that, no wonder a PS5/Switch 2 ports are heavily rumored. 

Avatar I don't think is going to sell enough to cover its budget or maybe just barely. It debuted at a luke warm no.6 on Circana charts and then was never seen again. 

The funny thing is if you look at Circana/NPD's player engagement charts (what gamers are actually playing the most), several other interesting trends stand out:

For people dumb founded as to why developers like GAAS, the proof is right there, look at what kids are freaking playing the most. ROBLOX is another one that doesn't get talked about, but way more people would rather play this:

Than this:

It's not even close either, lol, Roblox is way, way, way, way, more popular with the up and coming generation of gamers. And Roblox looks so bad it makes some of the LEGO games look great, lulz.