i dont know i simple dont like that they make same games for console and pc they sacriface alot

I'd give the advantage to the 'middle market' for a number of reasons.

Digital distribution is certainly going to help, however what I see being one of the biggest advantages is that the mega-budget games often are driven by the publisher's perception of market demand to allocate their resources towards shiny graphics and clever engines. The 'middle market' has the potential at least to focus on actual AI or story development, which are more often in my mind the real hallmarks of a great game.

Contrast Dragon Age with Baldur's Gate, for example. I devoted years of my spare time to BG and its sequels, replaying multiple times. Dragon Age I played through once and discarded. The quality of the plot, and the more open nature of the BG world had everything to do with that.

In a similar vein, contrast the AI of Civ V with GCII. No comparison whatsoever. Especially by the end of the cycle, the GCII AIs felt like opponents - not perfect, but the idea that you might be able to 'get in their heads' wasn't laughable. They had motives and judgement and executed accordingly. Civ V feels like playing against a cup of dice.

Another thing favoring better game development by the 'middle market' is that what passes for discount graphics these days are actually quite pleasant. Even minimum computer specs these days are capable of astounding things, and there is lots of precedent for simple (to code) but great-looking graphics. So putting resources into excellent art, story, and AI doesn't necessarily mean looking at a pixellated mush on the screen.

I think the reason for that is many developers don't understand that Art Direction is more important than the number of pixels. Just because you can have thousands upon thousands of details to a game's graphics doesn't mean it's going to look nice. High Def crap is still crap.

On the original topic: I definitely agree that the middle market is needed. In fact, most of the money I've spent on games in the past year has been on middle market games. Largely, I think, because middle market developers can focus on a single demographic for their games, a luxury AAA studios don't have anymore. You will never see a game like Elemental or Mount & Blade made by, say, EA because they need to market their games for as many people as possible just to break even.

I think there's still room for middle market games, but asking the same price as for a "AAA" game is unreasonable. Many middle market games are nowhere near as impressive graphically speaking as AAA games. Of course for some that doesn't matter, but it does for me.

As Lord Xia said, I also spend much more money on middle market than AAA games.

I guess my question is if Stardock is a middle-ware company, how come Elemental got AAA pricing when it was first released?

Did it cost as much as a AAA title to produce and was the cost justified?

nearly all games cost 50euro/usd

  I can answer the question in general.  Products that have a smaller market charge more because the production costs have to be divided among less customers.  Its why a ticket to a movie that costs 100 million to make costs as much as a ticket to a movie that cost 20 million to make.  this is true of all markets where the bulk of the costs are fixed (ie: the production cost is roughly the same if it has 10 customers or 10 million).

  That being said I want to be able to see my 100 million dollar movie blockbusters (the Lord of the Rings) and my 20 million dollars movies (The 40 Year Old Virgin).  It would be a sad world if either stopped being made.

The vast majority of games I play are "middle market". They're games tailored to a more specific audience, which means many of them cater more directly to my tastes. The AAA games and casual games have their own place, but being designed to appeal to as many people as possible, I often find that I personally get less enjoyment out of them. If they were cheaper, that would be fine, but they're much more expensive, so I end up buying only a very few games of type.

largely, i agree with crass_monkey. in sheer technical terms, elemental is as graphically powerful as it needs to be. strategy games don't need 10 billion poly models. even huge budget games like The Old Republic have realised that it is not always worth pushing the envelope any more.

but i do think there are good arguments for questioning the dogma that everything that isn't an idie or retro tital should be sold at $50 (£30 over here). if a friend had asked me, immediately after i bought it on release day, if elemental was worth £30, i would probably have said no. but £20? probably yes.

nice to see that the stardock rpg is still being hinted at. i haven't played a good rpg that wasn't overproduced, linear and dumbed down since Neverwinter Nights 2. you guys should try and aquire the rights to the lionheart: legacy of the crusader setting. awful game, but one hell of a good premise for an rpg. or your own alternative history with magic thing. history is always public domain.

I really hope it's not dead. With a few exceptions (Dragon Age II, Starcraft II, a few "classics"), every game I've bought recently would fall under the category of "middle market". This is due to several things: my preferred genres (strategy, role-playing), my available money, and my general tastes. Solid gameplay is worth more (a lot more) than the latest graphics), and the type of games that I enjoy (particularly the Paradox strategy games) quite simply don't have the mass appeal to be more than "middle market" titles. So, don't stop making them!

It does not take millions to make a good game. Some simple designs can easily become addictive and popular. This is currently the case for:

Dinner Dash and Plant VS Zombies.

I think to much emphasis is placed on game distribution and the old formulas are no longer relevant to todays distribution reality. For some reason the old thinking was that if you invest millions of dollars in a game it will be a success is not and has not ever been true. Dragon Age and Bioware titles in general are a success not because of ho much they invested but rather their commitment to a quality product. Specifically the fact Bioware titles tell a great story. The fact that they provide great eye candy does not hurt but it is the "what comes next" that hooks you and keeps you playing till one in the morning. The same can be said for Blizzard titles. Yeah 3-D models are nice but the hook for StarCraft II was the Raynor story line. People love a good story and video games allow us to blend the best parts of literature and cinematic's. If you create a great story fans will come. To further prove this look at the moding community. These mods have virtually no retail or marketing presence yet they are more widely distributed than many AAA titles. The success of DotA proves that people are looking for a quality product and one of the key factors to a quality product is a good story.

Does that mean Shogun 2 would fall in the "middle market"? It's US$49.99