
Ok let’s use those numbers:
Let’s say the ratio is 1/100. Rather investing in 100 diverse small - medium projects @ 2 million each or in one big 200 million project with a increased risk for bad management decisions and safe (boring) story & mechanics which leads to at best ok ratings? I would choose the former but i’m not a CEO type.

I 100% agree with prices having bloated over the last decade. The first card I bought was a 380 for $80, but $700 for a mid-low tier card is an extreme exaggeration
https://pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/#X=10036%2C40368&P=8589934592%2C51539607552
What makes it make even less sense is imagine they could magically somehow have invested instead of creating something. Fast forward a few cycles of businesses swapping over from not beating the average and instead of actually creating anything, everybody is only investing. Except, none of them are actually creating anything.
I think about this post from last year a lot:
Navok noted that if a game costs $100 million to make over five years, it has to beat what the company could have returned investing a similar amount in the stock market over the same period.
This game still exists?