Depends on what basis one is comparing it.
They are very different scales of game, but they both exist within the same economic realities.
Big studios seem to be working on the basis that just because they spend millions on a game, the game automatically becomes worth whatever price tag they want to slap on it - as if it's a natural law that pumping in more money should directly translate to more revenue, without fail.
But it turns out the value of a game is not what publishers hope its worth - its what players percieve it is worth.
So it's no surprise that indie games with amazing price-to-value ratios are seeing a surge, while big studios are struggling and don't seem to have any ability to understand why their business model isn't working.
Publishers are all shocked pikachu when their big budget games fall flat, but If people don't want to buy an $80 game it's not their fault - it's your fault for not doing enough to justify the price tag.
My message to studios isn't "your games should all be $20" (although some of them should) it's "you should provide value that matches the price tag" - and Silksong over here just laid down the gauntlet as a game which looks set to deliver tonnes of value for relatively little cost.
