Anyway, to answer the question:

No, I don't think Nostalgia is hurting the gaming market at all. I personally prefer old games, especially those from the Super Nintendo pre-3D era, but I still enjoy some modern games, keep in mind that kids of today mostly prefer all of the modern games, so there will always be a market for modern games.

Agreed. I also think drawing some inspiration from older games can also be a good thing for newer ones.

De-Stalinization?

Some will and some won't. It's the same as always. Back then we also had a lot of sequels (just look at the countless Mario games, Ultima I - IX, Might and Magic I - IX etc.).

And today we even have the advantage of the big indie market and of crowd-funded projects, where it is more likely to see innovative new concepts.

I think there is two things in it:

- If an old game is a good game, I don't see why it should be forgotten. If old mechanics or gameplay, or lore, or storytelling, etc... are good, they shouldn't be forgotten. New things shouldn't be rewarded because they are new, but because they are good or well designed. So if the video game industry is jumping to something new but what some people can judge as something bad or even in the wrong way, I think it's logical. As far as it isn't only conservative to be conservative, I'm fine with it. And sometimes I agree.

- Remakes and HD versions could be fine to introduce younger people or people who haven't played those games back in the days. Because of how evolved the whole video games industry since the early 90s, it's important to consider graphics, because the greatest way to improve video games was improving graphics for two decades. Improving gameplay, AI, etc... weren't the main goal. So I think it is important indeed to show to people used to play with modern graphics how good old games were, and why they were good even with old graphics.

But there is something to consider too: should HD remakes come into the first place in the video games industry pipeline? Shouldn't they be secundary? Should new games be produced prior to remakes? I think this point is the main problem. If a developer isn't wealthy enough to produce both remakes and new games, to come back into the industry maybe focusing on remakes is a good excuse. But considering big publishers, I don't think focusing on remakes is the right way to do. Doing some remakes, yes why not. But firstly remakes, I don't think so.

Yeah, that is a good question.

I sort of think Capcom changed Resident Evil (also added multi-player) to try to capture some of the Call of Duty market (maybe?).

I think lack of saves (and no auto-save) for example were one of the things that made the older games scarier, because when you die in the game, you have more repercussions, you're actually punished for dying in the game. Take for example a game like Bioshock, you can die in that game over and over again and just continue easily. I've even played games before where you die and the game puts you past the are you died in (intentionally or a bug? - I'm not sure) but it all seems too easy now. This is why some games like Dark Souls are so popular, they give a throwback to when games presented a bigger challenge without all of the hand-holding that so many modern games favor.

It is ironic that some of the kickstart projects are made of the older devopers of the older generations showing the new generation how to make real games.
The problem with new games, franchises is that its a risk factor, I dont know the numbers but a new franchise caused a lot of money to invent and people not always buy what they dont know. You know why nintendo still exsist because of mario zelda, people know those characters so they always sell.They have enough money to create something new but they know it would be bad for the people who play nintendo for mario and zelda.

That I have to agree with but would the newest resident evil still be hated if the old ones didnt exsist?