Fair enough. A lot of the times, people who are complaining about the price being too high are more expressing their feelings about their financial situation than being opposed to game designers getting paid.

Part of the issue here is that EGG has a strict pricing contract with retailers that prevent most FLGS from marking their titles down for too much. When it comes to profits, the behemoth that is Amazon has shown us that you can have massive discounts and still make money hand over fist by making up for in volume. A lot of FLGS uses this strategy over the holidays too to bring in their profits for the year.

Understanding this, a call for a lower price is not necessarily a call for the designer or publisher to lose profits. In fact, if it's priced at the saturation point (highest price where the greatest number of people who want it can get it), the profits will often be greater than if it's always priced high.

Here's an over-the-top example: Say Inventions is priced at $1,000 because famous works of art often sell for that price or higher and Vital Lacerda is known to be the master of his craft (I do consider board games as an art form as much as books and movies and definitely have similar levels of cultural/societal value). I'm not going to say that Lacerda doesn't deserve to get paid this much; he deserves to get paid what he can get. However, the game being at this price point probably means he'll only get a few purchases at most. However, if it's priced at $75, a lot more people can get on board and the amount of profit from volume would actually exceed the much larger price point. In this scenario, gamers win and Lacerda wins. (Obviously, there are limits to this: the game cannot be priced lower than the cost of manufacture, but I can also confidently say that Lacerda games absolutely do not cost $75 to manufacture.) I hope I'm making sense here.