Even though some people dismiss this as "water is wet", I think there is more to it here. I mean, everyone wants to produce a high-rated game, but I think publishers, and maybe the gaming scene as well, are too focused on meta critic.
First off, gaming "journalism" - especially when it comes to AAA blockbusters - has been a rigged shitshow more often than not. Many times "Gaming Journalists" get early or exclusive access to some huge AAA game press event and then are almost forced to write a positive review. This happend many times, even if the game turned out to be ass or very flawed. This doesn't happend all the time, but definitely it happend many times.
I don't give a shit about Meta Critic. The perception of Meta Critic scores is fucked up, too. A 70 out of 100 game isn´t bad or shit, its score just says it's seemingly somewhat flawed but overall enjoyable. And at the end of the day, it depends on your personal preference and how severe different individuals perceive these flaws. A somewhat bad game starts at under 50 in my book, but even then it depends.
If people like the game and it sells resonably well, it's shouldn't be denied a sequel, even if it doesn't have a 90+ meta critic score. I mean, this is probably already true for certain AA games, but this also shows a fundamental problem of "AAA" gaming. They are to expensive, they need to sell too many copies to break even, and therefore are a risk financially. Even "AAA" gaming is a missleading term these days. Back in the day, Metroid for NES was a "AAA" game. It was just a game of very high quality, meaning of a very high "fun" factor. These days AAA just means, "most of the budget has been spend on very expensive to produce realistic looking graphics". This leads to games that look the same, feel the same and feel more of a walk in the zoo than a true adventure, because everything needs to be adjusted to what marketing experts say. Back in the day, publishers didn't know shit and everything depended on the creators and their visions and what they thought would make a good game.
Anyway, I could go on about this for much longer, but what I want to say is this: The overfocus on Meta Critic by higher ups and gamers alike through a flawed perception of what constitutes a good or "worthwile" game in addition to modern "AAA" gamings reliance on realistic-graphics-driven focus-tested walking simulators (I'd call them "Zoo-Experiences", as opposed true creator-driven adventures), is a huge risk, because these types of products could maneuvere themselves into a dead-end and become a victim of a vicious circle. That's why I believe "modern AAA game development" isn't sustainable.
Yet, the current higher ups at Sony have probably not realized this. This is maybe what John Garvins means when he says "Meta Critic is everything to Sony".
This could be why the next Kojima Game is in talks with Xbox now and not with Sony. They saw the 82 of Death Stranding and probably dropped Kojima, only because he actually was brave enought to try a completely new and radically different game type (even if you don't like it, it can't be denied Death Stranding isn't something unique). But sometimes even in AAA gaming you need to experiment a little and try something new, otherwise there will be the risk that you'll eventually end up in creative dead-end with no way out.