Even more than this. I actually read the article (surprise!) and, while the article calls sales a double-edged sword, nothing in there seemed to actually support that claim. The biggest claim seemed to be that lowering the price drives the average price per game down. Which is... bad, supposedly? It didn't explain how. The rest of the article talked about how lowering the price attracted more eyes and more sales, which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who's taken a basic econ course. It also talks briefly about how a sales chart, such as for the iPhone app store or Xbox live, can be self-sustaining. Which makes sense... but I'm not sure I see the problem. The games gets on the charts, people buy it, the game goes higher, more people buy it, after enough time has passed everyone interested has it and the game sinks off the chart. All that should show up as is a bubble in a chart of revenue.
The other comments were how lower prices can actually generate the same, or even higher, revenue which, once again, shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who's taken a basic econ class.
Honestly, the most interesting thing I got out of there was the comments about just how well Valve knows their market as far as price-points go. The actual argument about sales being double-edged seems... rather vacuous.