As someone with broad experience, I am telling you: the golden age of gaming was very obviously late 80s - early/mid 00s.
For me it starts around 1994; I still have trouble finding the appeal in a lot of 80s games. The amount of derivative stuff and cloned games was even worse than it was in the late 2000s, and especially in the mid-80s developers seemed to just rush broken copies of existing games out the door, especially on consoles - so much of the NES library is so bad that it's actually depressing. For DOS and Amiga I can only really think of about ten games from the entire 80s that I really enjoy.
Take the following examples: games released in FULL, tested, polished, the complete vision.
Agreed on microtransactions and DLC, which are a scourge on modern gaming, but I don't know if I'd say a lot of 90s games were fully tested and polished. The best ones were, of course, but a ton of lower-budget games just got rushed to completion, often with devs not even bothering to release patches. I can think of a lot of games from that era that front-load all the best stuff at the start and then totally go to pieces toward the end as the devs ran out of time and didn't bother with any QA on the later sections.
And that's not even touching on all the games that were just totally busted - I still remember getting "Space Bunnies Must Die!" on release and thinking "what the
fuck is this", I don't think even the most audacious modern kickstarter dev would release something in that state.
Now that last one has a degree of subjectivity, or the lines are blurry: to the lowest common denominator, those games are great! Then you need to ask yourself what is valuable, an imbecile's standard of media engagement, or someone that can't find enjoy in what is literal braindead whack-a-mole. Lastly it is very important to make the distinction: there are simple and casual games that still have value on some level, like say Tetris. Then there are those where you're pushing buttons but absolutely none of it has meaning.
The market nowadays is so diverse that I wonder if there even
is a common denominator; the only games that really seem to have mass market appeal in that sense are Call of Duty games, which have remained pretty constant in their design since 2005, Fortnite (the appeal of which still eludes me), Nintendo shit like Zelda/Mario, and of course FIFA. But otherwise, I wonder how much an archetypal "common denominator" really exists in a way that can be catered to.
It is? Indie gaming yeah, and to a lesser extent some AA. The core of the industry is dead however and nobody with any sense would deny that.
This is a good thing though, right? We're finally in an environment where smaller, more niche games can flourish without the need to cater for (what publishers assume to be) the tastes of the mass market. When I look over my list of favourite games from the past five years, there's a hugely varied amount of stuff on offer - roguelites like Slay the Spire and Fights in Tight Spaces, FPSes like Ion Fury and HROT, RPGs like BG3 and Wasteland 3, turn-based tactics games like Gears Tactics and Jagged Alliance 3, a couple of big blockbuster AAA games like AssCreed Odyssey, and then random shit like Huntdown and Dead in Vinland and Hades and Desperados 3.
As long as such a range of games can exist, and attain enough commercial success for the devs to keep making more*, then I think we're in a great position. Big AAA games are just an occasional distraction at this point, they don't define the medium in the way they used to.
*
obvious joke here about how Mimimi went bust