Last post before I disappear off, just to put forward the alternative viewpoint for higher pricing on games.
Telling a developer that they shouldn't be charging a premium price for their product isn't something I'm fond of, mostly because I think it's the exact reason why few X-Com style games were made. Hardcore strategy games don't sell that well, and they're expensive to make relative to those sales. So if you're not allowed to charge a premium, developers naturally go for a game that will sell better or is less expensive to make (as people have to eat) and suddenly the original niche is utterly abandoned - which is what happened with the mainstream publishers, I believe.
This isn't a dig at GOG, as they said "the game isn't right for OUR audience at that price point", which is different (and fine). But sometimes people do express that opinion online and I think they should think it through in more detail.
Most people on this forum instead seem to be arguing we can sell it for any price we like, but $15 would be more sensible and would get us more sales. Fair enough, that's a better argument, but I still disagree. A few points:
1) Without wanting to sound patronising, having met various game developers at events, you do tend to get more information on sales figures over a beer than people are willing to post online. That leads me to think that a high price point isn't going to cause us too much trouble.
2) You can always lower a high price after release, but you can't raise a price that is too low. Better to start too high and work down than go the other way.
3) Niche titles (and Xenonauts is kinda niche) tend to hold their value well and will continue to make reasonable sales for a long time after release, simply because not many other games in that genre come out to replace them. There's not the same downward pressure on prices as you'd get if we were, say, making a 2D indie platformer.
4) I'd argue prices have been on a downward trend for a while, and trying to compete on price leads to a race to the bottom like as happened with iPhone games (that is not a good thing - now you only get a profitable game if you have a massive marketing budget). I think it's better for everyone if companies compete on quality instead, although it may not seem that way when you have to fork out more cash for a game.
5) Lowering the price does not necessarily mean you'll make more money, although everyone aways seems to assume it does for some reason. I know quite a few people who have dropped prices and made more sales, but not enough to cover the price drop (all of which is coming out of their margin). Here's a quick article on it - http://positech.co.uk/cliffsblog/2010/01/24/if-you-lowered-the-price-you-would-make-more-money
You don't necessarily have to agree with all of that, but those are my views. A fair amount is subjective, but please don't assume that I'm a fool because we're not selling our game for the price that you specifically think it is worth. That likely just means is that you're not part of our core audience.