Yes and no. The list indicates that mediocre or poorly marketed action games may not sell very well. You have no major critically acclaimed or well marketed titles in that list. I think it's fair to assume the same applies to turn-based games. So, I think the real question is will a mediocre action title outsell a mediocre turn-based title and will a good action title outsell an equally good turn-based title?
I would be surprised if the action title didn't win out in both cases.
Note that I'm not being negative towards turn-based titles. I believe there is a (probably niche) market that could be addressed with titles that have appropriately modest development budgets. Unfortunately, efforts to address this "2nd-tier" market have largely failed and the indie market as a whole fails to impress (there is simply only one indie CRPG development house that has actually delivered over a reasonable period - Iron Tower, Basilisk and Planewalker may change that but they've yet to release anything and haven't proven there is a sustainable model; we'll see in due course).
Once we are talking AAA titles, they are inherently developed and costed for mass consumption and it's plain silly for people to have expectations to get the latest DX10 shaders alongside some beardy hardcore turn-based CRPG. Not gonna happen -- and nor should it. The market is only big enough to sustain more modest development costs.
Bethsoft develops for the AAA market. The best graphics in the market are their trademark. They would be crazy to do a TB game, because their cost base and market just doesn't fit.
That's one of the reasons I think it's a shame Bethsoft picked up the Fallout license instead of doing their own thing but it's too late now.
Just quickly on Nival: only because their Russian cost-base is low. SS failed at the US market. They also amortised the technology cost over several (crappy) games. I like quite a few Russian/East Euro projects but it doesn't represent the broader market (and certainly not NA developers).