I wanted to post "What the hell he is talking about?!", but then I read interview and I must kinda agree with some points. I personally bought a few games that I didn't want just because they were on sale and later I was like "why the hell did I buy this?". ;)
But overall I like sales, but Steam and other digital distributors probably like them even more because of reasons pointed out by Guillame.
It's interesting the statistics Steam has used in the past--which I believe--that talk about things like selling as much as 7500% (75x) the volume when certain pieces of software have gone on sale--like in a 50% or 75%-off sale.
Doing a little basic math it's easy to see why Steam might do this...use $10 as the price of a game, let's say. Let's also say that the game sells 10 copies @ $10, but when it goes on sale for $2.50 (75% off) it sells 750 copies (75x). OK, 750x$2.50=$1875 in revenue versus 10x$10=$100 in revenues when selling the game at its normal msrp over the same period of time.
Which set of numbers do you think is preferred by Steam, the publisher, the developer, and the gaming customer? The *sale* is clearly a win for everyone involved. Not having the sale, in cases like this, is clearly what would be termed a disaster for everyone.
You cannot pick game MSRP's out of thin air as if there is some kind of unwritten law that dictates what every game should cost regardless of whether it's any good. That's ridiculous, but that's something all too many developers and publishers fall into, and it is an exceedingly bad habit. The fact is that a given game is worth what the market will bear, and no more. If few people think a game is worth $10 then few people will buy it, and unfortunately many people may pirate that game. But if reducing the price by 75% suddenly makes the game irresistible in the marketplace then many people will buy it and few people will pirate it--which makes for the best all-around results possible, and everyone is happy.
Besides, talking about "buying a bad game because it goes on sale for $4.99" is simply looking at the issue backwards. You'd be hurt a lot more, and your pain would be much greater, if you paid $49.95 for that rotten game, right? Whether it costs $4.99 or $49.99, there are no refunds available after you have tried the product. But the fact is that every game made has a price equilibrium that it will hit. Some games hit it on release day--like Skyrim @$60, or Starcraft II @&60--but other games get a bad rap, deservedly or not, and don't start selling until the price is driven lower. This is just basic economics.
To give you a personal example, as I said, Skyrim was a megahit right out of the gate @$60--but I refused to buy it at that price because, well, I don't think any PC game these days should cost that much, but that's just me...;) During Christmas, Steam ran a sale selling Skyrim for $40.14, and I bought it. For me, that was the price equilibrium for Skyrim that turned me into a paying customer as opposed to a non-customer. And was Skyrim a bad game that I regretted buying because it was on sale? Hell, no! It's worth every penny--and I've had people tell me they were happy to have paid $60 for the game--and I have to say that in this case I agree with them.
Honestly--I think anyone who laments PC game sales on the incredibly flimsy grounds that low costs might entice him to buy a bad game--is nutsola!...;) Bonkers...;) Etc. Those people remind me of folks who swear up & down that they want to pay more taxes just so Congress can raise the debt ceiling again next year, and then raise taxes again...:D