Going back to the social contract, what we have in place is very simple: someone makes and prices a product. Consumer decides to pay price and obtain the product. If not, the only ethical choices are to negotiate the price or abstain. That is the only equitable solution for both parties. But you seem to think the other party doesn't matter and you get to invent your own rules. Again, you can do that, but it's unethical.

This also doesn't seem particularly fair to those who fork over the $60 upfront cost versus those who download it for free. Those who pay are supporting (financially) those who don't.

If you were ethical, you'd simply wait then buy and enjoy the game after it has hit a price you can live with. The fact that you want to enjoy the game but pick your own arbitrary price is a just a rationalization for unethical behavior on your part.

For what it's worth I'd agree that often corporations are "greedy" in the sense that they focus on short term profits at the expense of a stronger long term view (which tends to benefit both companies and customers, in the long term).