On a balance of probabilities, an indie game due to having less funding and usually less qualified and experienced employees(or fewer of them), should in comparasion to a full retail release provide less enjoyment, most of the time. Therefore for the consumer to take the risk and buy the game, it should be retailing at a lower price than that of a full retail release. This occured at release, but now due to their age, the discount applied should have been greater. Comparing this to that of full releases on steam of similar age, the discount was small. This put me and maybe other potential cusotmers off

But that's just it: if you are not willing to spend $50 on three fantastic strategy games, you are not a potential customer, just like if your not willing to spend $50 on 3 fantastic RPGs like Spiderweb put together, you're not a potential customer for them, either.
For example, I would be a potential customer at Michelin-star restaurants if they were a third of the price they are now, or drink Chateauneuf-de-Pape, or wear top of the range hiking boots. However, Michelin-star restaurants and fine wine producers, quite rightly, argue that huge discounts to increase customer numbers 1) wouldn't make up for the loss of profit and 2) would degrade the value of the product. They say 'yes, we know more people would buy the 7-course tasting menu if it was �10, but that is not an economically viable nor desirable position for our product'. It is not meant for those who want a quick fix of cheap goodness.
Solium Inferium / AI War / Geneforge / War in the Pacific / AGEOD games etc. are not games to be picked up for 10mins and then dropped when COD goes on sale at Steam. These are games to plug hours, days into, dealing with a steep learning curve and eventually mastering what are cerebral experiences as much as adrenaline ones.
If you don't want to pay $50 for them, great. Everyone totally understands. However, that is their value, and if you don't agree with that, you are not a potential customer, no more than I am a potential customer of top-of-the-range hiking books.
Read the blogs of Vic Davis and Jeff Vogel, guys who do this for a living. They know that the diminishing returns on Steam sales are so small that they would threaten a business that actually makes (some) money.

That would be logical. But this is the sodding games industry. An industry bereft of logic. An industry with publishers who think that throwing games out early then compounding that by not patching them properly won't damage either their sales or reputation.
An industry where most projects don't see the light of day due to mismanagement and over-ambition. An industry where games are designed by a committee of people who clearly have never played them, failing to take into account any gameplay developments. An industry that thinks attacking its paying customers will inspire those who steal from them to become paying customers too.

Blah blah blah...
Listen, you insufferable meathead. A game's value is determined by one thing...how much enjoyment a potential customer will gain from it. There is no magical formula...just that.
An example (that dougitan brought up) is War in the Pacific : Admiral's Edition. It's a massive strategy game. It costs more than 90 bucks. According to your ridiculous pablum, that's an incredible rip off. It certainly isn't my cup of tea. And yet, considering the people who like it spend literally a year playing one single game of it, TO THEM it has value.
If you were simply saying "Hey, to me this isn't worth it.", fine...no issues. You aren't, though. You're arrogantly treating your bizarre notions of value as fact. News flash...they aren't fact for anyone but you. Get over yourself.

Beh, you shouldn't be honoring this guy with a reply. He's either just_another_troll_01741, or, as you yourself so nicely point out, an insufferable meathead.
Either way, just ignore him and let him die.

An Indie game doesn't mean it comes from a one two people team or that the team is without experience or that they don't know how the create a game. Electronic Arts started as an indie team. Other "indie" teams were/are Stardock, Shrapnel Games, Matrix Games, and they are now good publishers. Cammo Workshop is an indie developer and has created one of the most addictive, fun, game with their winSPWW2 and winSPMBT. They even continue to update the game 1-2 times every year for free! It's very difficult to think of a game I have spent more hours on it than winSPMBT.
What I am trying to say is
a)Indie teams doesn't mean less fun games
b)indie teams doesn't mean less anything about the developers.
If your original comment was true and suppose that the small ones are lacking, where the big ones are better, then all the games publishes by the 2-3 big publishers would make you reach orgasm just by looking at the screenshots.
Can we please go back on topic?

There is no specific price tag on enjoyment. A game could be simple or complicated but if it's fun then people will pay what they think it's worth, regardless of independent status or ... wow! I almost forgot this is the gaming deals thread.

Steam
Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising 75% off

that strategy bundle is pretty good at 50 bucks, it's just too bad i don't have 50 extra bucks laying around, that's why i rarely buy stuff over 10 bucks (except for KF).

I don't understand what problem you have with the 'balence of probabilities'. Have you never walked into a game store and and weighed up 2 games? That is a 'balence of probabilities', as you are weighing up which game would PROBABLY be the correct purchase for you, but as you see with most circumstances there are outliers and those that purchase based on more information. As you cannot determine the total value you derive from a release until it is fully completed, buyers would likely steer clear of 'Pacific : Admiral's Edition' due to this, heading towards a full retail release, as it would PROBABLY provide more entertainment. There are buyers though with more complete information and those outliers that buy on a whim, purchasing the game ethier because they can better estimate the derived value or just to try it out.

Jacob you don't make ANY sense (being nice here). Are you doing this intentionally or what?

Your example is wrong as the value of food in comparasion to other food does not degrade over time (would you buy a GOG if it was still 50USD), i.e. you do not say dam my favourite resturant has been open for ages, I might go to this newer resturant as it'll have newer techniques and better technology, that may provide me with a better experience. Where as with games most people do (well those that I know of), thus there is discounts. Also you forgot that alot of businesses even resturants have certain deals on opening or throughout the year to draw in customers.
Also you arguement would mean that these developers would never had made this package and would never have a discount, as they feel all potential customers lie at certain price point and those outside it could never be customers, this is wrong. (you obviously have never done marketing) Everyone is a potential customer at a certain price point or stimulus, this connection just needs to be made.
This is were my arguement combines, these games have been out for a while, thus maybe aging in graphics and game mechanics compared to newer games and maybe worth less than $50USD, which is the value of new retail game. Oblivously the developers feel these games have degraded in value, thus the price drop which is good, but it is still $50USD for three random indie games most have never heard of. Therefore when a customer compares the avaliable infomation most would go for 'insert new game' release. At a lower price point they would make more sales, as it is cheaper than a new release, providing incentives for the customer to buy it and save money over that of a new release.
It was not my arguement that this price point is not the price that generates the highest short term profits. My arguement was most customers will balence this price VS. a full retail release and determine due to factors like branding, marketing, proir experience, incomplete knowledge, etc that the retail release is better for them and not purcahse this bundle. This is cutting off a large portion of potential customers.
Also there are other added benefits of selling low in the short-term, allowing advertising of the brand, more complete knowledge for the customer (Hey indie games can be fun, etc), on selling sequels as they played the first, etc, this can provide higher long-term profitability.

Guys, can we keep this thread focused on gaming deals? It's rather annoying to see the thread has new posts, checking to see if there's a cool deal you may be interested in or may have missed, and end up navigating an argument to try to sift out any deals. If you want to argue your points, how about starting another thread for that? Thanks.

Only if you start a new thread to complain about this thread :p. Then I have to start a new thread to complain about you not starting a new thread to complain about them not starting a new thread to complain about stuff in this thread. I think that joke has already been taken too far, so let's just move along.
Seriously, it is annoying, but whatever. It is a discussion thread, there is meant to be discussion. If you want just the deals, subscribe to SavyGamer (that is basically where everyone gets their stuff from :p) and/or check Steam or Impulse every once in a while.