Although the article is well written and has some good points, I disagree with his conclusions.
The last step is two-fold. First, set a price that you feel is really worth it. If your game is better (for the people you think will be interested in buying your game!) than Titanfall, The Order: 1886, or Destiny and you can convince people of this then let those prices be your bar. Dont necessarily feel constrained by what other indies are doing. (Again, this has been debated ad nauseam, but the term indie has lost a lot of its meaning. It can mean anything from hobbyist learning how to program to Double Fine. So why try to fit to such a wide range of games?)
I think this is seriously flawed for two big reasons.
1 - As the developer, you're inherently biased in favor of your game's quality & worth. What you feel your game is really worth is almost guaranteed to be more than what your average potential buyer feels its worth.
2 - Best case scenario here is that you set your game for what you think it's really worth, customers agree with you, and your pricing has no positive or negative effect on sales. That's a weak best case outcome. Pricing should have a positive effect on sales.
Instead, I think you should set your game's price at what you think would be a good deal for the game. This helps to counter-act your own bias and it also makes the game's good price another point in the game's favor for prospective buyers.
A few other issues with the article:
Yes, with proper marketing, you can make the expected value of your game higher. Unfortunately, the only way you can reliably do this for mainstream customers is through the kind of marketing that indie developers just don't have access to. And hey, this explains why AAA productions can easily get away with charging $60 for a game (regardless of quality) whereas the best game made by a small indie team is going to be scrutinized if they go as high as $20. Articles, interviews, and conference appearances are valuable for getting the word out to the diehards and in turn, increasing your chance of being covered by reviewers, but they do little towards your mainstream visibility.
And bringing up Nintendo is irrelevant to an indie game pricing discussion. Nintendo has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of decades cultivating an image of a developer who creates must-play, high quality games that often retain price.
This kind of dirty exploitation has become very common these days.
