The interesting thing though is that a large portion of those games (you can add Stellar Blade and Wukong to the list) arrived only this year or haven't arrived yet.  I think we all can expect some growing into the new console gen from the last, particularly the first year or so, but we are half-way through already. 

The longer development times for many AA and AAA games obviously plays a big part but so does the screwed up way the PS5/Series' lives began, I think.  PS4 owners couldn't upgrade to a PS5 even if they wanted to, so developers continued to support the PS4, which had effects that lasted going forward.  So when PS5s became readily available, people didn't upgrade like they would have otherwise because they could still play so many of the current games on the older system and it just became a catch 22 for too long.

OT:  In any case, I don't think launching a $700 console is a solution to anything.

My kids recently played Skylanders on it, didn't need an install. That's indeed something worthy to go back to! Just plays straight from disc. But it would be too slow nowadays since disc tech has not kept up. HVD never made it to mainstream. 4K Blu-rays are merely souped up blu-rays, slow.

Patches are much better now. Most games don't need to make a full copy anymore for every patch. It took 26 minutes to copy GT Sport on PS4 (standard HDD) to apply a patch that downloads in less than a minute. Plus you need all that extra space to install a patch because of the copy requirement.

I can bash the ps3 gen for ruining gaming. The crutch of release now, fix/finish later started in gen 7. Plus gen 7 shifted multiplayer from couch to online. As well as killing the A game industry. Either AAA or indie. And of course paid online.

Tbh PS4 and PS5 would be behind PS3 for me if it wasn't for VR. PSVR1 re-ignited my passion for gaming, PSVR2 now gets 90% of my game time. I definitely wouldn't mind playing all the great PS3 games again in VR. But on TV, nah that time has passed.

DF and IGN speculate that the Pro has a GPU similar to a 4070 and the base PS5 something similar to a 4060.

The former performs around 55% better than the latter.

Using older tech was the default experience here in Brazil, so I know the feeling, lol.

I'm from 1993 and my first console was the Sega Master System... in late 1999, when the PS2 was about to be released xD

The first game I've ever played was Prince of Persia in a PC (whose system I really have no clue what was, probably the DOS version running on a windows 3.1 or so), earlier that year tho... but I hated it.

Sonic on the Master System was the game that made me a gamer.

Then my cousin got a Mega Drive and I got to see 16-bit Sonic and holy sh... lol

So yeah, experiencing generational gaps from 3rd to 7th gen one by one was really something crazy, which people starting to game nowdays will likely never experience.

If I'm going to drop like $700-800 AUD on a brand new next generation console, then I want brand new experiences, not just the same games I've been playing since 2017 with some extra pixels and frames. There's nothing exciting or interesting about just playing Switch 1 games in 4K.

The point of a new generation is to enable new experiences.

They likened the PS5 Pro to 4070 by factoring in features (DLSS, PSSR, RT potential). These features were factored out in the PS5 vs 4060 comparison. So if PSSR and RDNA4 RT live up to the expectations, the real-world gap between PS5 and Pro should be much bigger than 55% in the games that utilize RT and PSSR.

Ah Prince of Persia... My brother's best friend had it on his PC back in 1992~ (He also had a Sinclair with its quirky game cassettes lol), and I just couldn't believe how great the animations were. But PC from my perspective as a child was like a "Holy zone exclusive to the gods, begone small peasant!". I was happy with my little MSX with its Konami and Japanese greatness :D

I've never seen a MasterSystem, but little did I know that my first ever controller (which was compatible with MSX computers) was actually Master System's! My first owned game console was the MegaDrive, and yes the generational leap was glorious indeed (First game I watched on it: Mortal Kombat 2. I was a closet rascal!).

But they are not the same games

They are newer games

Most Nintendo games are not technically demanding. Why should Nintendo not release their smaller games on both systems if they are perfectly able to run on both? Majority of Switch library of first 3 years are basically refurbished Wii U games, either straight ports or just games they withhold from releasing on Wii U since it was already a dead console

Seems a strange feeling. You want people to not be able to play games their console is perfectly able to run because you want to feel "exclusive"

The first 3 years of Switch saw many exclusives; Mario Odyssey, Xenoblade 2, Splatoon 2, Smash Bros Ultimate, ARMS, Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle, Astral Chain, Kirby Star Allies, Pokémon Let's Go, Pokémon Sword/Shield, Luigi's Mansion 3, Octopath Traveller, Yoshi's Crafted World, Super Mario Maker 2, Fire Emblem Three Houses, Ring Fit Adventure, Daemon x Machina...

There's also the key difference that Switch was only a small step up in power over Wii U due to being a mobile device; presumably Switch 2 will be a much, much bigger leap.

It's not about others missing out, it's about wanting new hardware to offer new kinds of experiences instead of just last gen games with extra pixels/frames.

We've drifted way off topic at this point though.

The point is except by Arms all those games could run perfectly fine on Wii U. I'm sure a few of those titles, if not the majority of them, were at start developed with Wii U in mind and only during the development the focus shift to Switch since Wii U flopped hard 

A game like Octopath Travaler with 3D-HD can run really well on Switch, why should publishers not release this kind of games on base Switch anymore if they are able to run on base Switch? 

Of course, Switch 2 needs plenty of games that can't run on base Switch as well, but if the game can run is acceptable conditions on both it absolutely should be released on both 

It's a very odd mindset console gamers have that companies should stop supporting perfectly fine consoles and move forward. Can't see PC gamers demanding companies to release games that can't run on lower spec PCs just because they purchased fancy GPUs

My first Master System was a brazillian model called Master System III that came with Sonic pre-installed, but my brother killed it with grape juice way back then, lol.

The one I own nowdays is actually the model sold in the USA, which considering how utterly irrelevant it was there I think there must not be that many units out there.

Sadly it's one of the two systems I don't have the original box for.