What they published of the interview did end up coming off unfortunately; the point isn't that gamers don't have enough sense to make up their minds on what to buy and when. The point was that it seems to me that we've lost a lot of our emotional connection with games, and I think pricing's part of it. I used to be thrilled when I got a new game and I'd generally play the dickens out of it. Now, it's so easy to get games at such ridiculously cheap prices that I'll buy games I don't even want on the off chance that maybe I will want the game later when it's been patched further, or when the beta's done, or whenever.
But I'll probably never get around to it. Because I'll have bought something else in the meantime.
I think that games on crazy signaling promos are teaching gamers as a whole that most games aren't worth much, and they're encouraging the mentality of "enh, why the hell shouldn't I buy it?" I think losing that emotional connection with our games is bad for the industry as a whole--we care less about bad games, but we care less about good ones too and in the end we care less about games
--and so it's bad for the gamers who buy games, too.
I'm not so sure that I agree that low pricing necessarily has to limit the emotional link to a game. I've picked up games for 50 euros that I've played for 10 hours and then stopped, I've bought games for 2 euros that I've played for 50 hours and going. I was hacking away at Critical Mass for a good 20 hours trying to get up the leaderboards and that is a game I paid 63 eurocents for.
The problem is more various platforms (Steam being the most prominent guilty party but far from being the only one) chucking games out left, right and centre at ridiculously low prices and devaluing them. And when I say low prices, I don't mean 15 year old games at $5-10, I mean games that are barely six months old at anything between a dollar and five dollars.
It has given rise to a next-to-nothing culture that unfortunately more or less every other platform, including Gamersgate and Green Man Gaming, has seen fit to copy. As the tide gradually begins to work against Valve, we'll be seeing more intense competition that drives prices down so far that it simply won't be worth developing a game at the end of the day.
This kind of culture is what gave birth to the indie bundles. I personally think from a purely cultural standpoint the bundles are a great thing - they've given the games an astounding amount of exposure - but from a commercial standpoint they're only going to drive the market into the ground. Why? Because DD sellers can do it. They can afford to offer games at giveaway prices because there is little to lose in the short-term from it.
Sure, most of us will take advantage of a bundle or a Steam or GOG or Gamersgate sale for a game we had never heard of before or hadn't considered before and it will probably sit in the backlog for a while and not be touched until much later. I don't see anything wrong with that personally. I have games in my backlog that I've picked up from fleamarkets for a couple of euros that I didn't really touch until years later and which have since become my favourite games.
That's not the problem.
The problem is that a lot of people are now refusing to buy a game they actually want unless it is heavily marked down. They take one look at Steam or Gamersgate, see a game they want for $60, and their immediate instinctive reaction was to wait for the Steam sales. Just one look at the Steam forums shows the amount of clamouring there was during the Christmas sales for Skyrim to be included in the sales, and then a lot of whinging about how it was "only" 33%.
Were it not for Steam's predictable policy in this area, people would have accepted the fact that the game was not going to be reduced and bought it on release.
You'll see it on GOG as well, where people will frequently say that they'll just wait for the sales and argue a toss about percentages for the sake of some stupidly small savings (alliteration FTW) of 40 cents.