Exactly.
And it's dramatic for the whole industry between indies and AAA. How can a developer (or a producer) make an ambitious game without a AAA budget while it could need much more than an actual indie game? How can he even try if he sells at the current rate without implying DLCs, in-app purchases? Especially if the game he is actually trying to make is made for a niche? And what about indies willing to make ambitious games, too? No matter what marketing could try, a niche reminds a niche.
For example, if you look at strategy games, you can see what some companies slowly did, like Paradox since 2007: every game produced before was a full game, with sometimes a big expansion, and modding. But they were often full of bugs at release, and most of these bugs were corrected by the big expansion. But look at their games produced since then, plenty of DLCs, and yes, their games aren't so broken than the previous ones, but, except Multiplayer and diehard fans, who would even try to buy full price any of those games at release, since you will need to buy more than 15 DLCs after that to have a plenty full experience? In fact, that business model isn't only broken, but it is a vicious circle: you keep low prices to attract people, but because of the kind of games, there can be many to buy but there aren't so many still playing to buy further DLCs, and since the whole game is incomplete without those DLCs, you have lots of people waiting to buy "complete edition" at a lower price than you thought. And so on.
If you look at some other niche games which marketing was trying to make popular, like Company of Heroes, Total War or X Rebirth, there is a ridiculous amount of DLCs for Company of Heroes, and massive cut off Rome 2 Total War if you compare it to the previous Rome Total War. Greek cities as a DLC? Seriously? WTF?
And there is another thing (that's why I mentionned X Rebirth too while not having DLCs): marketing was focusing on fancy graphics, because for almost everyone, great graphics are the only feature that needs money. But that isn't true, and for strategy and other complex games, great graphics aren't the real core, IMHO. It isn't what needs more money to achieve an ambitious game. Concerning those previous games, AI is way more important than any fancy graphics, and that's why we had the Rome 2 Total War and X Rebirth fiascos.
Historical games need research to have accurate data and gameplay (unhistorical and fictional games too if they wanted to have a deeper experience); complex games need strong AI; narrative RPGs need choices and consequences gameplay; Point n' click need things to add more replayability (RPG-like side quests, for example); and so on. But they aren't AAA, and most of them can't pretend to have AAA graphics.
Should every game try that "x^n DLCs, in-apps, episodic" business model, only to have more content than games like Flappy Bird? How depressing is it. I'm playing video games, not watching 20-seasons-TV series.
