IAmSinistar: The main issue is whether or not it makes a profit over its cost of creation. For an indie title with a tiny team and no expectations of wealth, selling 25,000 copies at a dollar each may not be a bad thing. But for a large game studio, or a vendor like GOG, you need a credible amount of income to remain viable. Undercutting the prices reduces the overall perception of the value of games, and thus lowers what people think are acceptable prices. Certainly there is an argument to be made in case where cutting the price in half triples the sales, and thus more money is made, but with any supply-demand equation, there is a point at which the model breaks down and further reductions are not offset by increased demand.
Anecdotal evidence like that which you cite is useful, but needs to be taken in the context of the market as a whole. Many people didn't believe that big box chain stores would have the deleterious effect on the economy that they did either, because they were viewing data in isolation.
All are good points, and it's of course very hard to know the full truth. But as it stands, it does look like cheaper prices = more net profits to developers. I understand the doubts (and I have some myself) but it does not look like there is reason to believe 'undercutting' prices is bad for the industry at all. On the contrary, it looks like cheaper prices mean a healthier indie industry and a longer 'shelf life', i.e. quality games keep on selling for years after release. If cheaper prices have a negative aspect, they have positive ones too. Probably more.
I believe (though of course I can't know) is that gamers are willing to pay more for games they want to play more. I don't think the situation is the same as with the app market, where most buyers see one game as good as the next and therefore look mainly at the price tag.
Also, I believe cheaper prices doesn't automatically mean less money infused into gaming. Cheaper games have brought in customers who would not pay $60 or even $10 for a game. Gamers don't seem to spend less but more. Back when we paid $50 for a game, did anyone have a backlog? Do you know a single gamer nowadays who doesn't have a backlog now?
Huinehtar: Maybe it's just me, but I am wondering until when people continuing to make their backlog grow will stop buying games, because they're tired of it or because they cannot afford it
I'd think cheaper prices would cause more people to afford gaming.
Huinehtar: or even worse: because they're thinking that since the price of games has begun decrease, games should be free (and I'm not talking about freesoftware), so people would want F2P only for ever?
I see no indication of gamers (and I mean gaming hobbyists, not casuals) wanting to go F2P.
Huinehtar: How many years until fans buying at full price will stop preventing ambitious games with moderate/big budgets to fall?
expensive[/i]!!! Wanting prices to be very low, and expecting ambitious projects to succeed are incompatible IMHO.
Ambitious projects don't necessarily require big budgets. Fancy visuals do. How cheaper prices affect the AAA industry is hard to say (personally I don't really care) but I have a feeling people will be willing to pay more money for the Grand Theft Autos and Call of Duties as before.