Readit Newswell indie games are their own separate thing and large studios will never have the creative freedom and the ability to align a small team to a novel vision that they do. However studios with deeper pockets and larger teams can still innovate and push the boundaries of what gaming can be so long as the executive team isn't a bunch of spineless losers.
Deciding to set a "success" target of 100 million players and then spending upwards of $400 million USD developing one title is a recipe for studio closures and/or layoffs when it inevitably "fails" because executive leadership didn't set reasonable targets or come up with a reasonable budget. It's a big house of cards.
A more diversified portfolio of titles with more reasonable budgets would be a much safer choice, and it's how things were done successfully in the past.
Deleted Comment
There's people that simply enjoy their company and working in it, they only luck to sell when they are old and there are no great heirs to the business.
And that's true for billion dollar companies too.
I’m not sure that is a problem here given that as I understand it, natural proofs apply to circuit complexity approaches and they say the whole circuit complexity method has fundamental limitations which they describe thus:
So they take an entirely different approach using category theory. It may have a similar limitation as the natural proof barrier (as far as I know), but as they dismiss the whole circuit idea and do something different I wouldn’t say them not mentioning the limitation of a specific type of circuit-based approach is that much of a problem.[1] assuming certain things which people generally believe to be true