Fur I'd say there are two sides to this sort of thing:
1. You either have a great looking game, ready to go, and you have the funds to market. You need less reliance on the community. A huge money sink in and of itself when you see how much some of these games spend regularly to get new players. You build the community over time through this.
2. You have an existing, established community to rely on. In this case, which is rare, you're somewhat okay with starting off from a less than ideal position because the community is there to back you up. The existing community helps build itself up and grow further through word of mouth.
(Edit: Infantry doesn't have #2, there is barely a community big enough to lift itself off the ground, nevermind another game. We are all in our 30s with full time jobs and responsibilities.)
But when you don't have a great looking game AND no community in sight, then that's really, really difficult. Add to this the constant competition from a barrage of other games coming out, and it's almost impossible to break even with time/money investment:
1. Over 40% of Steam games were released in 2016.
2. Steam revenue was flat in 2016, despite the increase.
3. It's a "winner take all" situation where top N indies get everything, and the rest barely cover the time they spent to develop the thing in the first place.
This gem came out recently which demonstrates the point quite well:
http://positech.co.uk/cliffsblog/2017/06/23/your-indie-game-will-flop-and-you-will-lose-money/
(Edit 2: Just to clarify - you constantly have to compete against the barrage of new games coming out by constantly marketing and advertising the game, otherwise someone who is louder than you and has more funds will take the players away bit by bit as it has happened by LoL/DotA to many other games.)
9/11/01: No payments necessary. Donations are welcome and they go directly to pay for the server costs.