This is hardly *protection* for the cows, now is it? It's protection for the people who mistreat them. Could we have a headline that doesn't try to editorialize an issue about citizen journalism and animal rights into one about privacy?
What most of the commenters seem to be ignoring is the evidence that the author is doing perfectly well selling his game for $28.
Having played (and paid for) one of them, given it took me dozens of (entertaining) hours to complete, I don't have much of a problem with that price.
I think what the post really boiled down to was:
Expect high ($30 - $60) prices for big commercial titles because they cost millions. Huge development costs divided by lots of customers result in high prices.
Expect low prices ($1 - $10) for indie games in popular genres (puzzle, etc) because there is lots of competition. Low development costs divided by lots of customers result in low prices.
But expect highish ($10 - $30) prices for indie games in niche genres, because there are simply fewer potential customers. Low(ish) development costs divided by few customers must result in highish prices, or you lose money.
Yes, there are free flash games, but point me at a free flash game in the same genre and of the depth of the author's games?
The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.