Jason Blow was sort of talking about this a while ago at some gamedev conference. He was talking about the obvious necessity of making games more accessable. Allowing more people to enjoy a game is always a good thing. But he was talking about how for a game to feel meaningful and therefore feel enjoyable to play, you need to feel like your actions matter. Up until now, the primary way of achieving this has always been "challenge". If you do the right actions, at the right time, up to a certain standard, then you "beat" something and can progress. Otherwise, if you don't measure up then you have to try again until you do. This accomplishes the goal of making the player's actions seem to matter, but it has a problem of accessiblity.
If the game is too hard, most people won't get to play it all and experience it or enjoy it. However, if it is too easy, then it loses meaning for those who can beat it too easily.
He brought up how currently, developers have tried to mitigate this by basically using high production value scene of epic nature to disguise low difficultly level. The example was basically God of War. God of War is a very easy game in comparison to say, any of the old Megaman games, but the easy tasks you carry out in it LOOK really impressive and hardcore. the problem is, this starts to become boring the easier and easier you make the game and there will still be some people who can't beat everything in the game anyway. So, it's not really a good solution, it's more of just a bandaid than anything.
So his real suggestion was a move towards games where rewards/consequences to you actions were more realistic. Basically, if I fight some "boss" and I die, then I'm dead. If I fight some boss and I kill him, he's dead. But if I fight some boss and I run away after he beats me up a bit, the game still progress, just in a way that makes sense for that happening. My progress is not halted, just altered.