Yeah, it's been my experience that middle market games tend to have more depth but poorer graphics. Which is just fine with me. I certainly don't buy all of them, or even most of them, but I always have my eyes open for a good one.

For example, I would literally give one of my kidneys for an XCom remake. It wouldn't have to have cutting edge graphics. Actually, I would prefer that it didn't. It would just have to have the same features as the originals... and any innovation would only be bonus.

I tend to agree with the OP, I think the market will be fine. Much like the restaurant business, there will always be 5 star, 100 dollar a plate, likewise there will always be a cheap burger and fries joint. I like both, and I am thankful I have a choice!!

I have no idea about business or markets, if a game is good in its own right I just think its market will find it. I think most what are called AAA movies tend to just be about shiny special effects, a convincing trailer, but a poor movie. Not that I actually know what makes an AAA from a middle or small, but if the amount of advertising/hype is a factor then I'm basing it on that. I don't think I could stand to play another console game, there's some certain "sameness" that comes with them that reminds me of buffet food, where no matter which dish it is it somehow tastes like "buffet".

I think as a game or title becomes more popular (based on it's success), it's actually bad for it. It seems like the more millions they spend on a game, and the bigger the dev team, the more focus it loses. It turns out to be some giant committee build monument of compromises. I am of the opinion that too many games these days judge their own worth on how flashy they are, and how new their graphics are. On the other end of the scale are war games where it's almost like they go the other way, and try to impress their audience on how they can build an entire game using blue squares and red triangles. If Elemental was completely 2-d I wouldn't miss it at all. The only time I've actually rotated the camera was when I wanted to build on the other side of a mountain blocking my view.

Having played my share of Paradox games, I would like to say that although they have the right kind of idea in their depth, they seem to make simple tasks more complicated than they need be, forcing you to go through several menus for some basic things. And they tend to omit some simple features that you just have to be baffled how they could build an entire game and not (example:) allow you to change a units move orders after they have been set.

Looking at everything I just wrote, I find myself agreeing that a game should primarily try to be the game that as it was envisioned, and not worry so much about conforming to a genre, or a certain market. I think that's doing things oppositely from how it should be. An analyst can't build a classic, they can only give a formula for a middling title (sounds dangerously close to "middle-market"). I realize I haven't really made much comment on the original post, but I think digital distribution has yet to prove itself. And budget constraints should be taken into account before work on a title begins, when things get cut half-way through part of the vision is lost, and it shows in the final product.

Personally I prefer middle market games, most of the AAA titles are too much polish and not enough depth. I can spend endless hours on most middle market games, but the AAA stuff I get bored of far to quickly.

Unfortunately, with the disappearance of middle market games from the like of EB Games/Gamestop, I lose access to many of the titles I would like to pick up. Choosing to avoid debt traps by never having a credit cards, means it's becomes very difficult, if not outright impossible, to get game via digital download. 

Unfortunately, this takes into account developers' needs, but not players' budgets. Would I buy a AAA title and a middle-level game if both were priced at $15? Sure. Would I see The 40 Year Old Virgin is the ticket was around $50? No way.

I think that it's a mistake to target just your existing player base. It will eventually erode and will not be replenished. You need to reach new people, to draw new players into the hobby.

I know that it's not a revelation to you. Stardock is full of smart and talented people. It's just another voice from the players' trenches.

I personally didn't really like Dragon Age. I played a few hours into it and just couldn't motivate myself to go on. Hell for all it faults, I spent far more time playing EWOM

I think the gap is actually in the $20 to $30 range (£15 to £20)  this is now filled with reissues of past games - there may be scope - particularly on a digital platform to play at this price point - popcap do this quite well. games have more depth & polish than Angry birds, but not the high end graphics of the AAA. 

Probably you go broke, because the market size wasn't sufficient large enough to generate the required revenue?

Apart of the problem that higher budget doesn't equal higher quality.  

Don't get me wrong I was happy paying $70 or so for the special edition of Elemental. I trust that Stardock will give me an excellent return on entertainment for my money.

As a middle-ware company though I think the games should be priced lower to bring in more customers. AAA titles don't need to do that because they can sell based on hype alone. Middle-ware games not only cost less to make but I know people would be more willing to take a risk with them if they cost less. Stardock will make up for the price in volume of sales. Plus getting the game out there will definately bring in some hype for the next release.

And a note to someone that said AAA PC games are $60 now. I've only seen that true for multi-platform games. Because most new console games are $60 they feel they can price their PC version the same. Most games still end up being $10 less on PC.

Then you made a AAA game that likely won't sell very well as marketing will have a harder time getting the word out.

@larienna

According to http://www.usinflationcalculator.com rate of inflation change of USD between 1986 and 2011 is 101.9%. So $70 in 1986 = $141.35 in 2011. So the game that costs $70 nowadays is twice cheaper than cartridge with "The Legend of Zelda" bought in 1986! (Maybe shipping from Japan was extremely expensive then;))

(edited)