I see this sort of "hot take" all the time online and it rubs me the wrong way every time.
Video games are like any other art form that can be heavily monetized and advertised to a large audience. Large game publishers will, in the same vein as movie studios or book publishers, decide to place their investor's funds in the places where it makes the most sense from a business perspective within the current economic climate. I would assume this ought to be obvious to most people, but alas...I simply cannot understand those who compare the current AAA industry offerings to some kind of mythical "good old days".
"Do you remember when a team of a couple people could produce a game, and it didn't require any patches, and it was both amazing and sold like gangbusters?" No, I don't. Console games simply remained busted, while PC gamers had to go way out of their way to get sometimes-necessary patches. Marketing, as with any other industry, is what moves product. Of course, there have always been exceptions that prove the rule (Stardew Valley is the first thing to come to mind).
However, there currently exist so many avenues for games that don't meet the metrics for "AAA status" (whatever that means, not the point of this argument) to put themselves out there.
I've always agreed with Vinny's statement that now (whenever now is) is the best time to be playing games, and I think this sentiment depends upon two factors: (1) game creation is more accessible than ever, therefore the indie space has relatively unlimited possibilities as compared to years past, even when judged within the same "generation"; and (2) given the efforts of modders on PC and MS on consoles, playing older games has never been easier (see PCGamingWiki, Gamepass etc.).
This can probably be categorized as a rant, but I wonder if anyone else recoils at the idea that large-scale game publishing used to somehow be more pure (ie, divorced from economic forces).