And thats all well and good. But the concern people have in reality is that they shouldn't be the same price to start with. A concern which this interviewer brushes aside almost immediately.
Digital avoids the overhead associated with physical discs (manufacturing, shipping, etc.), so they
could be cheaper.
The problem that all digital products face w/r/t pricing is that selling things that are functionally identical (or BETTER) digitally to the physical counterpart for LESS money, means digital cannibalizes physical sales.
This would erode how useful B&M is to publishers, and how useful video games are to B&M.
B&M would cut back shelf space to have room for things that actually sell in B&M.
This would snowball until B&M has either completely stopped selling games, or it's relegated to some dusty, ill-kept corner of the store (see: what already happened at Sears, Kmart, etc.).
We can pout and stamp our feet that it "should be" cheaper digitally, but the economic reality of the situation is that Ubi shared that 56% of their revenue was digital, but they (and every other publisher) still need that other 44%. Ergo, organic demand for digital at current pricing models will drive the transition to digital over time.
EDIT: Ultimately, things are worth whatever people will pay for them, not what they "should" cost. As long as people are buying digital games at MSRP or whatever meager sale PSN has this month, don't expect ANY publishers to altruistically slash digital prices. I could see one or two publishers doing it as an experiment or just to be the "bad boy"/"people's champion", but it's not going to be a "thing" until publishers are making a far, far larger proportion of their revenue digitally, because a practice that hostile to B&M would result in them being kick them to the curb immediately.
