I'm far to busy gaming to worry about such things.

But not necessarily profits. As long as the profit margin remains positive then any decrease in the profit margin can be made up for with sales volume, increasing the overall profit. Of course, finding the price that sets the balance of margins and sales volume to maximize profits is a delicate balancing act that's tough to comment on without having market research data and sales figures on hand.
Still, I'm personally of the opinion that many game companies are currently ignoring too many factors (such as the state of the economy and competition from cheaper games) when they just automatically set their games at a $50 or $60 price point. I think the price point one can find the games at 3-6 months down the line more accurately reflects what the market values the game at, and if the initial price point diverges too much from this I'd expect quite a few initial sales are lost out on that aren't made up later due to people simply losing interest in or forgetting about the game as time passes.

First of all - it is obvious that developer has to make a monet. However they spending a huge numbers on DRMs, on marketing (not long ago - 1-2 months ago i read that EA spending on marketing and promo 3x game budget - it IS wrong) and other stuff that is not neccesery for final product. Those kind of things making final cost high. If You eliminate DRMs, less marketing and give more money for game - the product will be great and it wouldn need the commercial shit in such numbers. Bad product needs promo and commertial. Good product is selling himself.
I didnd ment that a game should cost less - it should cost but if im getting a product "defectivebydesign(org)" the price should be less - not higher. Thats why i told about downloadable version for ONE installation for 10 bucks in the premiere day. AND BOX full of fun stuff and brand new shiny for even 50 bucks. When You give a chance to choose You get benefit.
Look f.e. what Radiohead did with their one of the last albums. They didnt release CD MC and other. They gave it to download and for price "how much is valuable to You our fan". And it was a succsess - this album gave them more much money than anyone before.
It is a key to understand Internet - not fight with, use it.

Flawed reasoning - marketing is proven to increase sales, otherwise the very concept of it wouldn't exist. Plus, more money towards a game does not equate to a better game.
Radiohead could do that because they were already a critically acclaimed group with millions of fans. Lots of people have tried since then (most notably 2D Boy with World of Goo), but most have failed to get the same level of sales. It's not something you can apply to every game release.

Marketing that cost 3x than product that is referred to? I doubt. Second thing - weak product need strong marketing. I dont know how is in Your country but here i didnt saw a lot Mercedes commercials but Fiat is really often. Examples could be made almost infinity - conclusion is one: good product don't need agressive marketing. Bad product - needs one.
More money for game does not equate good game - however on market are lots of titles on with You just have this feeling that if programmer had more time and money game would be a really great - but now is just not finished product.
About World of Goo - i bought that game yesterday ;) It is awesome!!
Radiohead got the same position like most of big game developer. They got reputation, they got people attention. For small companies i would be some risk, but f.e. Ubi or EA or Atari?

Ignoring that you listed publishers rather than developers, Radiohead are also nothing like a games developer anyway. Developers put out a wide range of genres, new IP, existing IP, multiplatform titles, made by hundreds of people.
Radiohead put out music that fits distinctly into one bracket made by five people.. By and large, you will know exactly what to expect of them and whether or not you'll like it.

I always do that. I buy retail games and then download cracks. I guess that says it all. DRM is designed to make honest gamers life miserable, while pirates can enjoy games that doesn't crash to desktop everytime you launch them (or fail to launch at all) and don't require disc in a drive. I refuse to be treated like a thief.
It's the same story with original DVD's. Once you buy them, you can't just watch a movie. You have to go through some stupid "you wouldn't steal a handbag" shit, which you can't fast forward and listen to loud sundtrack that comes with it. It literally attacks you. On the other hand every DVD copying software used by pirates allowes you to cut those adds with no problem at all.

Some companies have got the hint with DVDs - quite a few major releases over here load up straight to the menu and straight into the film from there with no faffing about with warning screens or adverts, and have a little leaflet in the box saying 'thank you for buying a genuine copy'.

But recor time in good studio is expensive. And remember - i didnt wrote that developers or publisher should give their product for free to choose donation. My concept is different - look up and read closely.
Summit - i agree with You 100% but i dont buy a defectivebydesign products. However i think You get the point.
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/5011/18668351594921787633776.jpg
And think of that - you BUY a original DVD and on that DVD (or BD or other product) someone put a anti-piracy stuff for customer that ALREADY BOUGHT a legal copy. Someone tell me please - how the hell it stop piracy when You adressing that stuff to legal buiers?

It's because they want to keep their remaining flock scared into conformity. They've lost touch with their consumer base to such an extent that they don't know how to communicate with it through any means other than threats of force.

Obviously a balance needs to be struck.
As for the lowered price a few months down the line (unless it is Call of Duty...): One could argue that all costs have been made back by then, so it is just a matter of funding future projects. Probably not the case, but it is something to consider.
And you mention that the higher price can cost sales in the long run: It can also increase profits. Take a look at a game like Crysis which, while fun, was not really a groundbreaking game. A lot of people bought that on hype (50 buck mark). I doubt as many people bought it for 30 (although, a lot of people bought it for 10 or whatever Steam had it at last year :p).
It is a very confusing topic. All I was trying to get at is that the GoG method of "add shinies to make them buy" works for low-priced digital releases, but a new release (or any retail release) will probably not be able to pull that off to anywhere near the same degree.
And I am probably going to not bother replying to the other guy, since reading his typo-filled posts hurts my soul :p

I genuinely believe they actually address it to pirates. This leads to the conclusion which Navagon mentioned: either they don't know what's going on or they just don't give a shit.

Summit - i think both. Moreover if sth is dedicated to specific group somebody should at least try to reach that group. It is clear to that pirates dont look those kind of videos. Especially not in original DVDs - reason is simple - they pirate it.
Those kind activieties is like showing anti-drug material to people that not using drugs. It can be done but will it result a propheted effect? I dont think so.
PS. Still sorry for my english.

Well, there are also actually some good reasons to keep at the 50 dollar mark.
Between KOTOR 1 and KOTOR 2, there were almost no real engine improvements. Obsidian mostly just tweaked a few things and made a new campaign. As such, if we price based on content, there is much less incentive to do sequels. Sure expansion packs and DLC are options, but sometimes you have too much for an expansion, but still not a full blown new everything.
By that same token, it might take 9x as much time and work for Dev Team A to make "incredibly convoluted, yet entertaining, 4x game" while it might take a lot less time for Dev Team B to make Modern Warfare 3. The thing is, if those each have different costs and "worth" and the like.
And, of course, the simplest case of all: Let's say STALKER 2 is sold for 30 bucks, and Crysis 2 is sold for 40 bucks. People are going to inherently think that Crysis 2 is "better" because it is "worth more". It is the same reason that so many people bash budget releases and the like. I honestly suspect that might be one of the reasons why almost nobody has heard of UFO: ET, but UFO:Aftermath got somewhat well-known. ET retailed at 30 bucks, new.