It seems like every AAA title has to bring in 'blockbuster' earnings just to break even. A music CD that sells a million units is celebrated as platinum while an AAA title that sells a million could be seen a failure by publishers. Every game has to have the best graphics, the best voice actors, and the biggest marketing budgets. This is why publishers are constantly going after the biggest market and abandoning smaller ones. I realize this is because gaming budgets are huge and a single flop could lead to bankruptcy.
Why ignore smaller video game audiences when they would gladly buy games that have smaller budgets and carry less risk?! Why does this industry insist on having all of the money or none of it?! A point and click adventure, a JRPG, a RTS, or a survival horror game with a smaller budget would bring in a profit. It might not me a big profit, but it is a less risky one. These smaller games could become a reliable source of income should a huge title fail. The way this industry is going only a handful of publishers will survive: EA, Activision, Ubisoft, and possibly Bethesda. I am genuinely worried worried about what might happen to Bethesda if ESO flops. Even big publishers need mid-tier games to hedge the huge risk they take with AAA titles.
Look at Telltale. Gamers love The Walking Dead and The Wolf Among Us. We loved Amnesia and Minecraft. Anyone who says gamers refuse to buy games that don 't have the shiniest graphics is dead wrong. We just won't pay $60 for them. $40 dollars for a mid-tier game sounds good to me. Something with a budget that breaks even at half a million sold. There are underseved gaming markets out there. Why do you think point and click adventure and survival horror games get kickstarted so quickly.