I think one of the core things the industry doesn't understand is that no matter how broad you make your games, people are probably not going to buy that many more. Personally, I get every game I'm really interested in eventually, and I'll always be far more likely to buy a niche game that I like than a game from a different genre that tries to hit a few of my checkboxes to appeal to me. Large parts of the market saturated, basically, and those are the parts large companies try to emulate. Instead of being different, they try to be the same. There are plenty of excellent games to buy for whatever you're a fan of, especially if that's action shooters, and going for a wider audience at the expense of some of your core fanbase is not a clever thing to do, because the people you're appealing to are already be appealed to directly by games that are unashamedly exactly what that audience wants. Dark Souls was a massive success because it appealed to a niche that was going unexploited - really hard, attention-demanding, deep, explorative RPG. Resident Evil 6 was not, because generic shooters are a dime a dozen, and swapping some of your zombie survival playerbase (who, incidentally, are now being appealed to by games that get it, like DayZ) to be part of a growing pool of shooters doesn't necessarily result in more sales. As always, I've got no stats to back me up, but that's my intuition. The more typical shooters there are, the less well typical shooters are going to do. It's not a matter of every typical shooter will be bought by people who buy typical shooters, they only have a limited budget. At some point, and I believe we've passed it, you'll do better catering to the people who don't buy typical shooters because that's what every large game is trying to be.