Coincidentally, I've played a lot of the so called "great" indie games, and they've either been good or average, and a few have just been terrible.  Again take note that these are the ones that are often praised for the value, and that may be the problem right there as well.  People may be confusing quality with value.  Just because you pay $15 or less for a good, okay, or shitty game, doesn't make it any better of a game, it just makes it a good, okay, or shitty game that's cheaper.  The games that aren't considered great, but still well known, those ones have been frequently below average compared to retail games in any gen imo.  There are very very very very very few that are actually great games.

Here's another thing people seem to never take note of.  You always hear that indie games are only $15 so of course they're going to be shorter.  But the same $15 indie game that's two hours long, also has much worse graphics than the retail games.  So that's three for three.  Less quality, less graphics, and less content.  There are games that do last you a lot longer, but the quality and graphics are still much worse.  

You get what you pay for, and for that $15, you're usually getting a game that's not even close to the value of the $60.  It's a reason I don't pay more than a couple dollars for indie games because they're rarely ever worth it.

Coincidentally, I've played a lot of the so called "great" indie games, and they've either been good or average, and a few have just been terrible.  Again take note that these are the ones that are often praised for the value, and that may be the problem right there as well.  People may be confusing quality with value.  Just because you pay $15 or less for a good, okay, or shitty game, doesn't make it any better of a game, it just makes it a good, okay, or shitty game that's cheaper.  The games that aren't considered great, but still well known, those ones have been frequently below average compared to retail games in any gen imo.  There are very very very very very few that are actually great games.

Here's another thing people seem to never take note of.  You always hear that indie games are only $15 so of course they're going to be shorter.  But the same $15 indie game that's two hours long, also has much worse graphics than the retail games.  So that's three for three.  Less quality, less graphics, and less content.  There are games that do last you a lot longer, but the quality and graphics are still much worse.  

You get what you pay for, and for that $15, you're usually getting a game that's not even close to the value of the $60.  It's a reason I don't pay more than a couple dollars for indie games because they're rarely ever worth it.

Being an indie dev is a easy money maker.  If you can do something on your free time and say sell a game that atleast plays for $10 to 50,000 people, between taxes, Steam, etc, you're making 250k.  Split that amount between how many people worked for you, what assets you may have paid for, etc.  And if your game doesn't sell, put it on an indie bundle and you'll split the winnings with whoever else has their games on the bundle.

pay 15$ for an average game.

pay 60$ for a broken game.

Seems about right.

Battlefield 4 right?  A game you probably haven't played and like all the other sheep, you just parrot everything everyone else says.  The average internet gamer.

How about a game that looks like shit, plays like shit, and doesn't work?  Gettysburg Armored Warfare.  Because all indie games are going to work great, right?

The retro inspired games are designed to appeal to people who gamed back when those types of game weren't retro.

I don't like every indie game. I don't even like most indie games. However this constant snobbery towards them on the grounds that they are apparetly inferior to "real" games is rather grating.