Alright. I believe Silksong's pricing is very harmful to the gaming industry, let me explain.
This is no attack on the game or even on Team Cherry personally. I believe they just don't care about any of this, being a studio clearly concerned only with their own game and none of this business crap, though that is an enormous tragedy for all of us.
The semi-shadowdrop is not relevant to pricing discussions, but I would be remiss to not comment that it already had a harmful impact on many studios. The lucky ones had to tank the financial strain of a delay to avoid being drowned out from coverage/discussion while less fortunate studios that couldn't afford a delay now have to contend with releasing their games alongside the most wishlisted game in Steam's history. I feel really sorry for them to have this bomb explode on their laps without warning, in a perfect world everyone would know when this bomb would drop and plan accordingly (like everyone is planning for GTA6 next year, for example).
But the game's low price has a much greater long term impact than even the shadowdrop.
The most consistent source of good games are experienced studios (eg. to make Baldur's Gate 3 the workers at Larian grinded for over a decade honing their craft) and experienced studios require a stable business to flourish. However in the indie space stability is rather rare and most indie studios fail. They fail for a variety of reasons, but one of the major reason is simple math: they don't make enough money. You could see this as "they didn't sell enough copies" but the way I always see it is "they didn't get enough revenue". There are many games that could keep their failing studios afloat selling the same amount of (or even less!) copies as they did if Valve didn't charge the 30% cut, for example (the "industry standard" 30% cut is stupdly harmful to the industry, but that is another whole text). And related to "indie studios failing for not getting enough revenue" is the fact that almost all video games, especially indie games, are underpriced. In the sense that most non AAA games sell at a price much lower than a large portion of customers would actually pay for them and that results in a tangible loss of revenue to every studio.
This pressure over game prices is old, harkening from the XBLA era and it is probably the largest source of the "loss of good games that might have existed, but don't" in the past 15 years. Cheap indie hits are great for the buyers in the short term and not harmful for the studio that made it, because they make their profit from the sheer volume of sales, but in the long term cheap indie hits are always harmful to the entire game industry and games as an artform. You can trace a line between indie hits from the late 2000s and early 2010s being priced too low and the agonizing death of the AA, the slow disappearance of the lovely and weird middle budgeted games we had in droves up until the early 2010s, the closing of the Japan Studios of the world, etc.
And all that is because indie hits at low price points reinforces in the general public the expectation that high quality games are "worth" this cheap price even when they actually aren't (you can see that live if you take a cursory look at social media reactions to Silksong's $20 price tag). As I've explained, what allows an indie project to succeed despite a low price point is the hope/assurance of profits from a large volume of sales, otherwise they aren't profitable/sustainable. This pressure keeping non-AAA game prices low greatly narrows the scope of projects that are viable in an economic sense and thus much less games that do not fit a certain mold can flourish, which ends with the current trend in the stagnation of the indie space, where the majority of games are mostly trendchasing projects trying to land a hit or bust (because landing a hit is looking more and more like the only way to survive in the long term).