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.

It seems every company just wants to have the next GTA/COD..
However companies like Square Enix are finally breaking this mentality with games like Bravely Default.

Yes, I definitely agree that this mentality is damaging the industry. To what extend? We won't know for sure until some years have passed.

I've been taught by the gaming industry to wait for price reductions. It's ridiculous how they price games., buy on release for £40, buy a month later for £25, buy 3 months later for £15 or wait six months for less than £10 pre-owned. I know this is just rough pricing, obviously major hits hold their value and huge flops drop even quicker but its roughly how it works.

PC games are even worse. I bought Rayman Legends for £3.99! How much was it at full price £30 or maybe £40. It's not an old game. I was thinking about buying a game for £15 on pc and then it appeared on a charity bundle for 66p with six other games.

You don't get many industries that price like the gaming industry. It seems to be based on what the market will allow and never consider how early purchasers pay excessively.

So personally I have no problem with game pricing but just utter amazement at how the gaming industry is run.

I notice some companies like Activision though try to keep prices high. I've been looking for call of duty games for the pc and there are few offers and they rarely go ridiculously cheap or appear on charity compilations. The trouble is I have so many other games to play that I can't justify their purchase. The pricing is fair though for all the gaming that is there.

Lol ?

Square has done AA games since the Snes era.

its because games are too cheap.. if we actually all bought them at new price 60 dollar there wouldn't be a problem.. too many of us are waiting for a price drop hurting the industry.. when will we buy it at 60 dollar? if its a triple A.. We ain't gonna buy a great awsome game if it looks like a ps2 game new.. we wait.. and wait till its 20 bucks and then buy it..

You can't have a product just break even in this industry.. you must make a healthy profit otherwise there isn't a next product.

Our cheapassness is hurting the industry

I rarely buy a game upon it's release. Maybe 5 or 6 a year tops. Like it has already been stated, if you wait 1-3 months, most of the time the game is half of the price. When they start releasing too many games too quickly, it really makes it easy to wait. Especially when i have free games to play on Playstation Plus, and very little time to game until the fall/winter, due to work.

I think that is unfair to consumers. It's up to the industry to sort themselves out and price correctly. Ultimately if games are too expensive and people decide they would rather put that money towards a holiday or perhaps some blu-ray movies that is there choice.  We don't owe the gaming industry their existence.  If we buy more blu-rays then more money may go into film production for example.

Our demands and expectations are not deliverable at the costs that developers and publishers are making.. If we would be happy with ps2 graphics everthing would be fine..the industry caters to the consumer.. And right now its that we only are willing to pay full price for triple A games.. Even if there were B games at 40 bucks people would complain its too expensive and wait for a price drop to 10

Games should be priced at a more attractive price. Say $40 for a new game and that would result in more sales and in return generate more profits. Lowering the retail price of games would generate more sales and better returns for all games including: small, medium and large franchises. It is smart for a consumer to wait for the new $60 game to drop down to a more affordable price.