While I think that many of the author's concerns are legitimate, there are also some counterpoints that I would make:
1. A lot of the fun in consuming something new (whether it be a game, a movie, a book, or whatever) is that it's one of the few times when "everyone is talking about it". There's an emotional reward in getting to participate in those conversations that mark a shared cultural experience. If you wait a year or two, you missed it - even though you played the same game, you "weren't there when it happened", and everyone else has moved on to talking about other things.
Now, this isn't going to be a concern for everyone. (We're on a classic gaming forum, after all, so I'm guessing we tend on average to be less concerned with "the hot new thing" than the population at large.) But I'm willing to bet that for a lot of people, the "added value" that makes them willing to pay full price at launch is that they get to participate in the carnival atmosphere. That's got a pretty short half-life, though, after which the game simply becomes high-priced.
2. As a consumer, there's a definite benefit to me in the prevalence of ultra-low sale pricing, beyond the benefits to my wallet. I basically foreswore gaming back in the mid-2000s, because back then the price of a new game was usually $60-80.00, and I just got burned one too many times by a game they'd sexed up with slick marketing and hype that then turned out to be a soulless turd. (You couldn't even rely on word-of-mouth, because everyone else was still so buzzed by the hype that they'd praise anything.) I decided that from then on, I was just going to wait a generation to see which games from the previous gen stood the test of time, and then go back and play those. Clearly not an ideal situation for publishers.
What steep sale discounts have allowed me to do is to once again be more experimental in my gaming purchases. I'll give a game a chance if it looks potentially interesting, instead of waiting five years and playing only the "true classics". I'm only risking a couple of bucks, so if only one in ten purchases pans out, I'm still getting much better value per dollar than I got under the old system. And if I start playing a game and don't like it, I don't feel any "obligation" to suffer through it because I paid sixty bucks for it - I just toss it aside with a shrug and reach for the next one on the pile.
3. I think the author is wrong that people "won't feel burned" by a higher price if they come to the game later. It's not like it's hard to find out what a game used to cost, and there's a psychological tendency to feel like if you're not getting something for the best deal possible, you're a chump. (And so since the "best deal possible" will never come again, buying the game at full price involves swallowing your pride, which may be a bigger sticking-point for some people than the price tag itself.) Even when you buy a game and it goes on sale a week later, you can at least pat yourself on the back that you made the right choice "at the time" and can't be blamed for it. Again, I'm not so much describing myself as just noting what I see as a trend that might bite this dev in the ass.
Still, I'll be interested to see how the experiment works out in the long run.