I'm sorry, but in my opinion this just means that the game companies have a bad buisness model.
It indicates that majority of gamers do not buy the games for 60$ because the price is too steep. They wait for the price to go down not because they are spiteful and do not want to give the company their hard-earned money, but because they do not have enough money to spend on this game. And I do not mean that they are neccessarily poor or would have to skip a few meals to buy a game - this money is perceived as better spend elsewhere. Let's go with an example. Let's say I have the money to go to a fancy restaurant every week for a proper, fancy meal with good wine, but then I wouldn't have a lot of savings or could not go on a shopping spree one weekend. Therefore I would think a lot before choosing the fancy restaurant and probably would only go there for really special occasions. At the same time, eating in fast food restaurant while more expensive than dining home does not put much of a damper on my other financial plans, so I could be more spontaneous - maybe even to a point where I spend more money in fast food restaurant than in a proper restaurant. Say, how many of us buy 10 things (we don't need) for 5$ and think nothing of it, but have to agonize for hours over one 50$ purchase (that is actually useful)?
Maybe, just maybe, lower prices are an answer. Let's say every new game costs 40$. That significantly widens the pool of people wiling to buy it without giving it much thought. It also gives potantial to buy more games - it's easier to justify to yourself buying three or four games for 40$ than one or two for 60$. But of course that should come from the PROPER analysis.
Or maybe the answer lies in a better diversification of game prices - why every game has to have a 60$ price tag? Maybe go for a few smaller, shorter projects that each generates less money on its own, but they add to revenue. You can keep you company afloat by small projects, and occasional big one. This usually works very well for designing studios, which have one or two big, long projects, and several smaller, just to keep the money coming and all designers fed.
I might be wrong, but I just think they got too reliant on the big titles that go all out, and forgot that selling one, pretty uniform (I don't think that anyone will argue that majority of AAA titles are very similar, or in case of Ubisoft, almost identical to each other when it comes to gameplay) product for a lot of money is not really a good practice.