> It's kind of how people brutally skewer the $5 Steam indie game, but if the $80 game made by the AAA billion-dollar studio sucks, folks seem to be much more f

> It's kind of how people brutally skewer the $5 Steam indie game, but if the $80 game made by the AAA billion-dollar studio sucks, folks seem to be much more forgiving (looking at you, Diablo 4). While I know the point you're making, gamers certainly went up in arms over "the first AAAA game" priced at $70 instead of the standard $60 for AAA games, even before seeing it was a poor game. Additionally, the people who are typically complaining about the shortcomings of $20 indie games have given up complaining about $60 games' shortcomings. They expect them to suck and stopped paying attention to them, so the lack of comment is apathy toward AAA games and a desire for indie to succeed. They give passionate response, good and bad, because they care. The very low priced indie games (<$5) also fall into the same problem category of most low priced things above free. The exchange of money makes people demand much more from something than if free, and price sensitive consumers are much more picky than those who can more easily put out hundreds of dollars.