And you know, it would be nice if the market was related to hard work, but it isn't. It has nothing to do with how hard you work, only with what you can deliver. If it had to do with work, going to art school wouldn't be an awful idea for all but .1% of the population. Neither would chasing after a career in writing. The only thing that's relevant is whether people will buy it or not. And "really good" just isn't good enough to make a living on, a lot of the time.
The difference between me choosing whether to buy it or not is the value of one copy of the game (unless others decide to buy it or not based on it). I'm not trying to make my opinion end the world and put him out of business. It was just a one line opinion/observation that happened to not be in his favor.
And my peeve with what started this whole discussion was that your implication that the game in question, Bleed, has less value than it may truly have simply based on the belief that indie games are trying to cash grab by abusing retro styles. And by seeing the pixels and the fact that it is a low budget indie game you're instantly and automatically assuming that it has less to offer and less content than full triple A games.
While it might not be as visually appealing and polished, it really isn't too different from something like Shadow Complex, a side scrolling platform shooter that was released on the 360 and was pretty big when it launched.
[Image: http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/images/9/2009/07/shadow_complex_peter_david.jpg]
But really, if we set aside graphics and polish, the core mechanics and gameplay are practically the same. So what really splits the two games apart is the actual design and layout. Given what we know from the trailer, we can't really judge that yet. I just feel like you hold a really strong bias and have decided this already, however.
Going back to EBF3, since we're using it as an example quite a bit. You believe there should be more of the game before it should be considered a complete title. I strongly disagree. The game had a truck load of customization and extra content to explore. Something you'd be actually hard pressed to find in funded rpg's released even today, and definitely miles ahead of the classics.
It doesn't offer a full length 28 hour adventure, but the experience is real and its a very valid game. Of course, you're the one who thinks there is something missing, so you'd be the one who could tell me best what it needs to have before its "good enough". Because honestly the only significant thing I can think of that differentiates EBF3 from any other console RPG release are the lack of cutscenes and high budget graphics. But I never asked for cinematic cutscenes and as long as the graphics work consistently for the artist (hence why many low budget devs do pixels), there is absolutely no problem whatsoever.
I recently paid 40 dollars for a really great game for the 3DS: Paper Mario Sticker Star. I was honestly hoping for a real cinematic adventure with engaging characters and plot, just like the previous Paper Marios did. But this game threw all of that away and made it an almost combat-exclusive rpg, very similar to EBF3. Honestly, it had less content. Verdict? Best game I've played all year (2012). I seriously dont think I had so much fun with a video game in years. It literally lacks all of the "content" you'd expect from a full fledged game. If it was missing that Nintendo polish, I'd even go as far as to say it felt like "some flash game".
I don't think big developers are trying to cash grab on retro nostalgia either when they make 2D worlds. But since most have moved on to 3D, I'm even more welcoming of all these indie devs who want to enter the scene. If anything, I don't feel like there are enough indie devs trying to take advantage of the nostalgia plan to try to make some cash. At least it would motivate someone to make a few gems in this dry well industry where everyone with money and resources are only obsessed with making their games prettier than their competitors.
As far as value goes, if this is the industry standard for 40 dollars:
[Image: http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb/GamesRadar/us/Games/K/Kirby%20Mass%20Attack/Everything%20Else/Kirby01--article_image.jpg]
Then Braid should be 50 dollars, not 10. Its really the whole "its just an indie game" bias that drives prices of these games down, even though they're worth so much more.
And of course, if you disagree with that standard, then you have managed to perch yourself outside of the supply and demand equilibrium point, and the industry really don't care what you have to say on the matter. Thats a classy way of saying you're wrong, by the way.