Sony will let the games do the talking. And in my opinion, that's a better strategy.
We are already hearing reports who apparently knows devs in the industry (moores law is dead) saying it's actually the xsex that is struggling with resolution and not the PS5. After the Crytek dev speaking about the efficiency of PS5, honestly I do think it is possible.
But of course, we will only know for sure when the game comes and we see for ourselves.
Moore's Law Is Dead honestly isn't too reliable when it comes to impartial next-gen discussions. In their next-gen analysis video they made some very dumb assumptions about XSX design decisions, such as them going with 320-bit bus because they were "technically unable" to go 384-bit, implying it was beyond the team's technical abilities, when only moments prior he said that a larger chip means bigger costs, and a 384-bit memory bus requires a bigger chip than a 320-bit one.
So I immediately gave them the side-eye when they made that assumption on XSX memory bus set-up instead of something that'd agree with what he literally mentioned moments earlier, i.e a smaller memory bus to save on production costs. By his logic the PS5 must've been a failure of design since it has an even smaller memory bus (256-bit), but interestingly he made no such brash assumptions there
Anyway on the aspect of resolution, I honestly don't see how it would be too difficult for devs to hit higher resolutions on XSX unless they are inexperienced with programming for larger GPUs. But the thing is, GPUs are parallel technologies at their foundation, so even without targeted developer input I'd assume the GPUs tend to saturate as much of their hardware as possible with automated processing tasks. So unless a developer is intentionally limiting their GPU programming to only a smaller portion of the chip, I'd have a hard time believing there's any serious struggling by devs to hit high resolutions on XSX.
Also with the Crytek guy, FWIW he had to redact that interview and it'd seem he was only involved in mobile-side development, with no devkit access on his end. So everything should be taken with a grain of salt, similar with the recent interview stuff by Chris and Optimus; even that Matt ex-engineer guy, you have to take what they say with grains of salt because of COURSE they're going to focus on hyping up the positives of what they worked on (and from what I've seen, they're a tad too touchy when deciding to mute certain people simply for having some constructive questions on certain things). You shouldn't be taking 100% of what these people are saying as gospel.
PS5 has a fillrate advantage, for example, due to the faster GPU clock, but does that necessarily bear the major influence on resolution? No, not really. There's other factors into that, obviously. But if you're turning to devs (past, present etc.) absolutely, that's...probably not the best approach to take.
Has there ever been a game released that specifically required a new GPU? You may drop some old GPUs from your supported list, but not supporting the popular GPUs in the last few series is off the table. Probably the glass ceiling will be a bit lower on the SSDs, I can't see them eliminating users running SATA variants just yet. That's not to say that you can't make good use of the faster drives in the consoles, I just wouldn't expect third-party devs to jump straight into building worlds that require a 2-3GB/s load every time you turn around. They may use that much at the highest settings, but not as a minimum requirement.
Also not every game is going to need to transfer or stream data from storage at the level of the next-gen SSDs. It all really comes down to how the game is programmed and how its engine functions.
Does anyone think that Hellblade II is a major loss to PlayStation? Does anyone think that it was cheap of Microsoft to make it exclusive even though the first one was multiplatform?
How can this be realistically answered at this time? No one knows yet. The game's still in early development, and only the dev team's been playing it. It could be a dud (I highly doubt that), it could be great, it could be amazing, or it could even be industry-defining. Reality is, no one knows yet.
I like keeping optimistic on game quality outlooks, though, so it should be pretty dang good at very least. Looking at it from the context of "was it a loss for PlayStation" doesn't make a lot of sense to me; I don't care if it's a loss to them or not. I don't care if Insomniac is a loss to MS or not. Let the chips fall where they may and just hope for the best for these studios at their new homes.
. I'm not too sure if it's a major loss but I honestly wouldn't know lol. 
?
