Again, I'll post what I said in the Wired thread, because I'm lazy.
Who is asking for games that cost into $100 million dollars and took an entire generation to make? Would the sales be impacted if that were halved or quartered? Is there enough sales potential (realistic, actual sales potential, none of this "it might sell better than Pokemon" bullshit)?
The industry aimed too high, suddenly started ballooning budgets, and then went "oh god there aren't any sales here to cover it up." Their response to this? Homogenize, wring the AAA space of any creativity and put the advertising on full blast. But we can't have smaller budgets, oh no. We've got to have our mo-capped dogs and celebrity voice actors that nobody asked for. We've got to cover the cost of letting you develop your game for five years because you have no direction. We've got to cover you trying to wedge into an already saturated market of shooters and brown, and then failing miserably.
And then, time and time again, the consumers are expected to show up at the door every time these developers come out with some new way to make the package look worse. Oh, now you get half the content. Oh, now we're going to sell you that content back to you over a period of a year. Oh, now we're placing your game's access on computers you don't control, and then those computers won't work. Oh, now the game doesn't actually belong to you, it never did.
If the industry was smart, they would have had a linear progression of costs, but they're run by idiots who don't understand the market. Instead, they're baking these stupid anti-consumer things into the console, and selling the console on silly TV fluff and apps that half your entertainment center already runs. Because, sure, that will get people to buy a $500 monolith instead of a $50 Roku. Who the hell comes up with this shit?
