The proof is in how many different kinds of games are being made. That we have games which are massive franchises, that have been homogenized and distilled to appeal to the masses, yet we have games that are filling niche wants for gamers of certain types. We have games for people who are extremely hard core games, and games for those that are extremely casual. We have games targeting all skill levels, all types of play, and so on.
If that's your metric, then by your own definition of "golden age", your "objective proof" fails to support your assertion. The time period I spoke of elsewhere (mid-90s to early-naughties) was still more deserving of the title than what we have now. Both eras had their share of shovel-ware that made up the majority of the "variety" (Sturgeon's Law and all) but we haven't gotten any new "types" of games since the rise of the MMO with Everquest, other than perhaps the "non-game" art-games which DO legitimately fit GPs complaint about being (barely) interactive movies (Journey, Dear Ester, e.g.). The games we do get are either the homogenized, "safe" crap with some production value from the ever-consolidating established studios, warmed-over rehashes or navel-gazing self-indulgence from the independents, and cynical shovelware from mobile ad companies which come close to (or surpass) most objective definitions of "malware."
And there are some types which have been all but abandoned by both groups -- such as space combat simulators (XWing, Wing Commander, B5:IFH, e.g.) which belie that assertion, as well.
What we have now are the union of the manufactured mega-hits, console exclusives which might as well not exist for any player who can't/won't pay $1200 every five years, and indie developers putting out 9 turds for every diamond, all with the technology that the music and movie industries have been dreaming of for decades - the power to make every full-price purchase into a long-term rental, and our own version of the "loudness war"
What has happened is that various things have brought down barriers, so now small groups of people, or even single people, can create and compete in the games marketplace. The upshot is we get things for more interests, not just the mainstream.
That's hardly a new thing. That's the exact situation that caused the Atari crash.
The major paradigm shift has been smartphones, which opened up the "casual" market to people who might want to play games but not buy separate expensive equipment (consoles or a gaming-rated PC) and is largely dominated by the third group mentioned above. That doesn't make a "golden age" for anyone other than the people grubbing for money, and certainly not for the players.