Totally disagree. The sign of a healthy market is the middle market. Same with movies.

In the 80s, you'd have middle budget movies, that would make a ton of money, and would sit alongside super high budget movies. Movies like Breakfast Club, which isn't an indie, but it's not a high budget blockbuster either. It was 1 million dollars in 1980s money and it made 51 million dollars.

There were tons of Breakfast Club like movies (in terms of budget and scale) that sat comfortably with the big movies like Return of the Jedi or ET. The middle market thrived.

The indie films fell into two categories, surprise hits that launched people's careers like Halloween, Evil Dead, Clerks,

Or stuff only arthous-y people actively sought out and were hard to come by.

Likewise with gaming. During the PS2 generation, most of people's favorite games, if they did a top ten list, probably like half the list or more would be middle market games.

Max Payne would be in more people's top ten's than a huge budget spectacle game like Medal of Honor Frontline or Call of Duty 2.

You'd have a few games on the larger budget side like the Jak and Daxter games which I imagine were relatively expensive compared to something like Max Payne, or the occasional really expensive game like one of the 3D GTA games, but generally, PS2 era favorite games were a healthy mix of middle market and some high budget games. Indies were barely a factor.

When the only two markets are 250 million dolllar budget games that need black rock funding so that it doesn't bankrupt their studio; or a game made by 3 and a half people that uses pixel art because it's the only art style their budget allows....that's a bad industry.

Movies are the same way now. You either have 250 million dollar movies, or straight to streaming indies made on a shoestring budget meant to pad out a catalogue.

That's not a good market. The indie studio A24 and others like it, are the closest thing to middle market movies, in that they have enough money for good actors, and good cameras that have a filmic look, and they still feel closer to arthouse films you'd have to seek out in the 80s and 90s than the middle market crowd pleasers of things like Breakfast club.

So I think gaming is not in a good position. When I look at "best upcoming indie games of 2026" or any year, I get depressed at how generic and bland things look even when they attempt an interesting art style. I can feel the lack of money.

In the PS2 generation, except for bottom of the barrel shovelware, you couldn't feel the lack of budget, because they tended to have a reasonably high budget. Indie games are relying on post processing filters in engines to replicate the true art style directions that only money can buy, which is why all the games have a sameness to their look despite the color choices used.

This blandness isn't limited to Indie games. AAA games also look bland, but for an entirely different reason. AAA games can't be creative due to their "this is too big of a ship to start getting funky and risky with it, so safe choice is always better" despite that resulting in blandness every time. Then there's the lack of competency compared to the past that also contributes to why even AAA games that have the money to make gorgeous games, look ugly compared to even just artfully crafted PS3 games (especially when the PS3 games are internally upscaled in Emulators).

So on one hand you have Indie without the financial means to replicate distinct memorable looks, and AAA with a combination of factors unable to replicate distinct memorable looks.

Most indie games I've played, even if there's a core gameplay idea that's solid, it's held back and never reaches the heights of an average PS2 or PS3 game.

Again because the middle market is gone. The middle market is the best indicator of a healthy market.

When all you've got is indies and huge budgets, it's not at a good position.