Two things here:
1. In reference to "polish" - one of the biggest things that would make people's (both players and dev's) lives easier is to develop a method/system where your hardcore audience (i.e. those of us who hang out on the forums rabidly) could make updates to the system quickly and easily. I work in Release Management and Systems Architecture, and what you folks need is some sort of CI toolchain for community "patches". Make it simple and easy for the community to update a large number of "polish" items, and that makes everyone happy. The simplest thing here is for textual fixes. Then XML fixes. Yes, they need reviewed. Yes, you can pay something trivial amounts to do this, and it saves VERY valuable Dev time.
2. I think one of the other problems is NOT initial pricing. Without getting into things, $40-50 is a good pricepoint, and a reasonable ask for games where you expect to play them for a long time. Look not at mobile (since that has an audience in the 100s of millions), but at consoles, where $60 is now common, and stuff still sells there like hotcakes. The audience is the same: there are FEWER current gen consoles (~18m PS4, for example) in the USA as there are PCs that will run GC3. People have the disposable income (even well down the economic scale) that they're willing to spend on games.
What the problem is has to do with Steam and how it's run its economics. The very frequent sales is hurting all developers, and realistically should stop. Games are a luxury item, and you DON'T discount luxury items until they're well and truly past their prime. The price at release is what the price should stay at, for as long as the game exists under active development. Sales should be very infrequent and not 75%, but 25%. You'd end up with a far better (and more stable) revenue stream, and an audience that knows what games cost, instead of a bunch of entitled whiners who have no idea of the economics of development. Tell me, really, Brad, since you have the numbers, how much money do you really make when GC3 is knocked down 75%? If you could sell the game consistently at $25 since launch, doesn't that beat out the revenue for a $50 launch where some (read, just the hardcore folks) people buy it, then 3 months later have 80% of your total audience only purchase it for $10?
Games are luxury goods, but ones well within reach of 50%+ of your typical US households, especially ones that have relatively low HW requirements (let's face it, GC3 runs on a 10-year-old PC that's had a $30 RAM upgrade). Stable pricing is far better than sales-based ones, unless you've borked your target audience so badly that they only buy on sale. JCPenny found that out the hard way: the retail clothes business has so trained the average buyer to only shop at sales times that when they lowered normal prices by 15% but didn't have sales, it screwed them over completely. Steam has enough of a major marketshare to undo this kind of damage before it's permanent, but it's getting darned close to being irreversible now, and unless Steam changes, it'll screw devs forever.
Start screaming at Steam NOW, if we want good games to survive.