If I paid $1 for a game I'd expect it to be at least 1/40th as much fun as a $40 game, and I don't think that any BYOND game is worth $1.
I could list off hundreds of $40-$60 games that I wouldn't even take for free. Price doesn't assure quality.
The 1/40th as much fun idea is flawed. The next time I spend $20 on a pair of sandles, I guess I should just assume that they are 1/5 as good as a $100 pair of sandles. Regardless of whether or not I like the style of the $20 pair better, and they last just as long as the $100 pair.
There are tons of BYOND games worth $1. There are also tons of BYOND games that charge money and aren't worth playing regardless.
Or, if you're a yuppie, a tiny dusting of a snort. =P
(Okay, maybe that was a little inappropriate.)
But yeah, I do think people overestimate the value of money for some things and underestimate it for others. For example, I pay somewhere around $30 every month to go see a movie in the theatre. But if someone were to say, "Feed starving children in Africa for only 20 cents per day!", I'd just look at them and walk away -- feeling slightly guilty, but that'd soon pass.
I think it's a matter of tangibility. Buying the rights to play a game online is an intangible concept -- paying for food in Africa is an intangible concept. Buying a new PC game from the store is a tangible concept; going to the movie theatre is a tangible concept.
In other words, if you don't get a CD, a ticket, or something else from it, somehow, the material instinct screams, "YOU'VE BEEN HAD!" then adds, "And would it kill you to go buy some Cheetos?"