Garnett’s math seems wrong. He seems to think that the conversation is “Our game isn’t going to be “successful” at this price, so we should be pricing it lower.” No, the conversation is “It cost us X to make this, and we are expecting it to sell Y. There is NO way we make our money back at $40 so the price HAS to be $60 for us to even have a dream of making our money back.” The consumer and the consumer experience in relationship to cost never even enter the conversation. If you have ever attended an investor meeting at any company this is how they report. They have to show stock holder's and investors that the concern of the company is increasing value of the company and not whether the game is good or if they are charging to much for the quality of the game they are releasing.
That is the real disconnect. It is between the success of a fun game and the effect that this has on stock price, which is none at all. Investors don’t know from good games or bad, so when a studio get’s closed up after the launch of their most recent game, it’s really just about the economics of investor confidence then anything to do with the quality of the released game or the pedigree of the design team.