With that said, you are 100% correct when you say that better tech allows for software innovation and flexibility. The only only problem is that graphics in video games are finite. Graphics aren't as important as they used to be. Focusing game play on graphics is not sustainable because of the law of diminishing returns.
Graphics are important depending on the game. Gameplay is obviously king but If a developers vision is for you to be fully immersed in a world they've built then it's important. If you're playing a driving game especially an open world one then graphics are important so that you can see where you are going without pop in.
We haven't reached that point yet where graphics are giving us diminishing returns.We think we have until the next gen comes round and then we wonder what we did before. There's a reason why every single console reveal have tech demo's showcasing how they can improve both gameplay and graphics. It's a dev's duty to to have the right ratio of resources dedicated to gameplay and graphics. Of course with better tech, this usually becomes an easier decision than it was previouslly.
You said it yourself, a major focus at this past E3/Gamescom were indie games. Why do you think that is? Major companies in the gaming industry are suffering and are laying off employees on a consistent basis. Just today EA was rumored to have lay off close to 300 workers! It only makes sense to exploit indie development as game cost continue to rise.
I think indie games are a major focus so that you can foster talent and have a variety of games on your platform. This happened on the PS1 which helped it explode on to the scene. With more exposure and success these indie developers can grow to be the next big thing or just carry on making great games
As for why companies are laying of staff it's because game budgets are increasing. This gen alone has seen the rise of multiplayer games and you need network engineers to build the netcode for games. That's an entire new workforce that need to be paid that were not there in the previous gen.It's not like theres 70% of the studio working on making the game pretty while 30% work on gameplay. As games get more complex, you need to spend more time on them which means hiring more people and paying more wages. Everyone across the board has been affected, some worse than others.
Games like Journey were the exception and not the norm last generation. For every Journey there are 3-4 games like Tomb Raider whose publishers were barely able to recoup the money it took to make the game. Compelling game play ideas and originality were put on the back burner far too many times last generation in hopes to emulate the success of games like Call of Duty and Halo.
Yes while some tried to chase the Cod money and failed, there are plenty others which had original ideas. They don't sell as much or have the same marketing budget as COD or Halo but there are loads of them if you search. I visit the PSBlog so I see all the different types of games coming constantly. These original games are now getting more attention than before which is good for everyone.
You bring up Vita as an example to show how graphical limitations could hinder a system. That's an apples and oranges comparison. In your example the developer's original vision was met on the console it was built for. The publisher was faced with the problem of porting that game to a lesser system. This is more of a function of bad planning.
I brought up Vita to show how hardware could limit a system. They couldn't port it because of the slicing game mechanic not the graphics. It's an example to show how gameplay can benefit from better technology.
Gaming consoles by their very definition are closed devices. There will always be limitations as technology develops, BUT the question is whether better technology will yield a better experience for gamers. Just look at the 3DS; it is far weaker than the Vita, yet it has outperformed that system up until this point. By your accounts developers should be able to make better games on the Vita... but they are not. The better games are on the 3DS because the developers focused more on the experience and not the graphics...
It's a bit subjective to say the better games are on the 3DS. To me the games on Vita are better but that's just my opinion
If we were to compare games that are on both then the Vita version will perform better everytime. Certain genre's are also better on Vita because it has dual analog sticks like FPS's.
There are many things that affects a consoles sales not just the hardware. You can make powerful hardware but if no one makes games for it then it doesn't matter how powerful the hardware is.
Developers are hardly making games for the vita becasue they've jumped from handhelds onto smartphones and tablets.The handheld market is shrinking. The higest selling third party game for the 3DS in the US is The Angry Birds Trilogy which is a mobile game, it's Ninentdo's games propping the system up in the west and obviously that's their bread and butter. Things are better in Japan because they have third party support there but mobile is growing there as well as TGS this year will show.
