Financial concerns are separate from what I was discussing. Every hobby has different gatekeeping elements for involvement or continued involvement, be it camping or gaming. Obviously we need to live our lives within our individual limits.

However that in no way affects my earlier point, which obviously you are free not to follow or heed. It's just a point that distinguishes the idea that the straw man argument ("there is no need to play the latest games because graphics have peaked in 2015 and old games already contain good things i want from games") doesn't address the fact that new games come out with valuable elements that that person themselves demonstrably values.

Same reason could apply to movies and music to say no one "needs" to watch or listen to newer stuff.

Then you become the old man telling kids to get off the lawn. It's anyone's right to be like this.

Playing games in the modern era for better graphics is like watching the latest movie because it used a really cool high tech camera.

You should play new games for the artistry and quality of gameplay, story, and other elements, same as ever.

But that doesnt mean new games have no value. You're just fighting against a straw man to begin with.

"fuck your livelihood if circumstances and your choices led you down x y z paths!"

Anything that reduces costs is redirected into shareholder profit increase and executive compensation increase. If reduction of costs actually led to those savings being reallocated for quality increase it would be far too vague of a notion for profit minded execs to understand or promote...