I'm not trying to idolize them. There are a LOT of really bad indie games. Much more than AAA games for sure. And yeah, a lot of them are cheap platformers. But 1. That doesn't mean they're gimmicky, I think you're trying to avoid explaining what you mean by "gimmicky" and 2. I personally prefer to play a bad game than to play a good game with microtransactions, but that's just me.

This i to much LOL for me i'm sorry man

I guess you nailed it.

AAA games get far cheaper a few months down the road. Indie games on the other hand are sometimes more expensive than what they offer, because even though we have incredible indie games like Journey, we also have a lot of rubbish, specially 2d plats that are far from being innovative.

Besides, sometimes what we want from a AAA experience is exactly the familiar format. I don't need fancy food everyday, sometimes chocolate doughnuts are just great. Many would rather just play 300 hours of the genre/format they like than spend 30 hours in a bunch of different innovative smaller games. That's why there are still many that buy a console  just for one single game.

Plus, as you said, it's not easy to find indie gems and every time I look for them I find platformers, platformers and platformers and I'm sick and tired of 2d platformers.

Pricing is the only thing I dislike about AAA games today. That, and micro transactions.

1) I get some game do do this, but most I think are genuinely game trying to offer content beyond the game as a extra content. When I was younger, this was something I always wanted as I it extended the life of my favourite games. Assassins Creed and EA's Battlefront games crossed the line a few times, but Spiderman or other games where content is like an extended epilogue, that is really extra content not held back content.

3) Kingdom Come: Delieverance

Typically, I don't look at indie games as I like games with length and depth, and indies are usually too short. I think Limbo was the last game that could be called indie that I played. Maybe I should see what there is though.

Hey you’re preaching the choir. I’ve been very vocal about my distaste for a la carte gaming. I even wrote an article three years ago stating that Nintendo had become part of the DLC problem. But in the end the company makes the best games on the planet.

1) That's just a personal thing. I prefer for a developer to only release a game when they think it's as good as it can be and then move on to the next game instead of expanding upon it. And btw, Spider-Man's DLC was announced before the game was even released, so it is held back content.

3) I'm not saying every single indie game is innovative. I'm just saying a lot of them are, and I don't see the same happening with AAA games.

I don't really care about how long a game is unless it's outrageously short. The length of the game has nothing to do with its depth. I've played 6-hour games that were much deeper than 30-hour ones. I'd probably recommend Dead Cells to you, as it's very long and very deep.

I very much agree with the OP. I think I agree with Veknoid_Outcast even more though. What I really like are 1) Western indies, 2) Japanese games which are mid-budget (i.e. AA) or 3) Nintendo games. And I also agree that Nintendo has been gradually adopting more of the disgusting practices of the Western game industry.

I play some indie games, but the thing that holds me back the most is that many are digital only. I really like having a cartridge. But if it's on a cartridge and the game is well made then I'm all for it. One of the best games I've played this year was Axiom Verge. Bring on the indies!

I've been playing this...

And then I'm probably moving on to this...

Both games are NOT AAA games.  I have nothing against AAA games.  I just don't allow the "AAA" status be a factor when deciding on a purchase.

The only time I pay the original full price for a game is when it comes as a rare special edition or the value shoots up from being out of print.