We've long sense passed the bar of how much computer power is needed for gameplay, and graphics improvements are deep in the realm of diminishing returns. The only way for AAA games to outdo each other now is by ever-expanding scope and budget. A slightly more powerful console doesn't help them achieve that, and releasing on everything at once can help them recoup costs from those monster budgets.

videogames as the youngest of all media is obviously going to get hit the hardest by capitalism draining it of its lifeblood for the last few percentages of profit. the only thing that has seen actual progress in videogame design is how "engaging" (or psychologically manipulative and addictive) they can make them and for that you don't need any technological prowess (although the idea of technological progress leading in any linear way to more innovation has always been suspect to me, gamers only being able to imagine "more destruction" and "better ai" as markers of progress seems emblematic of that fact)

if games like the newest god of war (ostensibly a serious story driven game) needs a seven people "player investment design team", celebrated games like "death stranding" are gamified like any mobile or clicker game and even indie devs make "pls lobotomize me for the next thirty minutes" stuff like vampire survivors you can basically give up on the medium. there's no ambition in any of these companies that goes above "we need to get those engagement numbers up". and if engagement is the goal, it's stupid to make more games than you need to. you can only play one game at a time.

the only devs i have any interest in nowadays are fromsoft and nintendo (and that's only the nintendo that makes mario and zelda games) and maybe the occasional indie game (although they mostly suck too)

And they're also in the process of porting all the PlayStation exclusives over to PC, making all the consoles completely pointless.