I personally really hate the notion that because a game is 2D (or even just side-scrolling with 3D, even HD graphics), are "not worth full retail price". As if somehow fully 3D games are "worth more". That very idea, to me, is fucking absurd, I'm sorry to have to say. A game is worth whatever the gamer thinks it's worth. Many recent "2D" retail games I've played, have a HELL of a lot more valuable content and replay value to them than a LOT of 3D games out there.

So yes, of course 2D games are worth full retail price, if they're well made, and you enjoy them. Conversely, there are a hell of a lot of 3D games that are NOT worth $60. If you want to get down to it, I don't think any game should cost that much (without some sort of pack-in peripheral or something). But, since that is what the market has decided full retail console titles are worth, then I re-assert my belief that YES, well made 2D games, packed with content, are absolutely worth that price, moreso than many 3D retail titles are. The end.

But a game can be fun to one person and not fun to another, people have differing opinions on what makes a game fun.

you paying for branding not similar experiences.

Same deal goes for games like COD with there prestige editions lol.

This boilds down to: If its a good game, its worth the price, if its a turd game, it isnt.

That rule crosses all genres.

You can't decide that just by the fact that it is 2D or not... It's not like indie devs can't create good 3D games and sell them for a fraction of the 60 dollars, it's just less approachable. So because 2D might be more 'basic' to deal with than 3D, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't cost $60. I myself would worry more about bad games costing so much, but that's just me then.

Why do people assume that 2D games require less work ?

3D animation was an evolution because it cost less. And the amount of code needed to use correctly the GPU power on 2D is gigantic.

While this is true, you also need to take designing etc. in consideration. We're speaking of 2D indies which have, IMO, quite simple design. Coding is another story, but it's not the only process in making a game.

People obviously hating Minecraft just for its graphics make me thank God they aren't chief execs at Lego, otherwise they'd make high-res bricks that people should assemble using tweezers and little kids would inhale even easier than they already uncannily easily do.

and because of nostalgia factors.  

With a Nintendo game in an established franchise it's "It's the same formula with new levels, but isn't that what you want?"

With another game it's "In the end it's too similar to previous iterations to warrant being called a truly great game."

Popularity does equal quality. If something is popular then its doing the job it set out to do. Its a good product for the target audience. It doesnt matter how much it sells in terms of numbers, what matters is if it does the job it set out to do - Make a profit, expand the market, expand the business.

Indie titles are generally being bought by people who are gaming on a budget, people who are sick and tired of the same rehashed franchises and people who hear about them through word of mouth.

They dont promote lower standards of gameplay design at all, because you pay for what you get. They are held at a different standard because of the cost of the product. Hotline Miami costs £7. Its obviously gonna be a smaller game in terms of content than a £50 retail release. Day Z is £20, because it has a fuck ton of content and replayability in comparison to something like Hotline Miami.

As I said before - Tell me how Minecraft is inferior to say, LittleBigPlanet. Tell me how Outlast is inferior to Dead Space or Resident Evil. Tell me how Day Z is inferior to Medal of Honor. These Indie titles are absolutely curbstomping a bunch of "AAA" counterparts.