Indie gaming, for what I believe, is a lot about accessibility, experimentation and open mindedness - which involves social aspect as well. If someone requires me to pay money before do I even know what am I paying for, it does spoil the experience in the outcome. Money does bring bias to the reception. It elevates the expectations, among else. If I like the game a lot, I will pay for it eventually, in the manner of a donation. The surrounding culture should help with that - telling if you like something, if it survives the test of time for you, if it makes for a fine memory or you keep returning to it, then you should support the developer, because he earned it. But it takes a while to unfold, such a higher level, "ecological" approach, for what it is. On the other hand, if someone does not have the money to pay for every game one wants to try out, if one simply does not want to spend money on games, why should then one be forced out of the community? There are also other currencies in existence, valid feedback being one of them. People forget that time, ideas, social involvement, are also something of worth. Even if money is eventually most welcome for practical reasons, people generate social gravity and social gravity, attract more potential customers.
EDIT:
For the 'low-effort' category, I say, let us talk about games made 'smart'. There are plenty of titles overdone in multiple ways that ultimately somehow fail to become the latest craze or set a new cultural standard. 'Smart', is the way to go.