Price does indicate quality, however. In Europe, there's a big difference between EUR 3 wine and EUR 8 wine. Usually.
And only if neither wine has a reputation. A EUR 8 Bourgogne is pretty much guaranteed to be crap: you're paying for the word "Bourgogne" on the label. A EUR 8 Cotes du Rhone, however, is pretty much guaranteed to be very drinkable (a EUR 3 Cotes du Rhone: not so much. EUR 3 Bourgogne doesn't exist).
Once you go above the EUR 10 price point, it becomes hit and miss. None of these wines will be bad, but price will no longer correlate exclusively or at least predominantly with quality. In that sense the article is right.
But at the lower end of the market, where, I'd assume, most mere mortals operate, yes, price indicates quality.
>Why would you expect the selling price to translate to quality?
Because of the massive wine snobbery industry focused on shaping your wine preferences to match to "official" rulings?
>For an apt example, could I sit you down at a computer and have you tell me the price of a video game?
No, but there's no elite/elitist group built around convincing everyone that $60 games really are better (except the advertisers themselves, which allows you to account for the bias).
I think you're misrepresenting the criticism: it's not that "hey, more expensive wines might not be right for everyone"; rather, it's that "... so why all the puffery around convincing people otherwise?"
> For an apt example, could I sit you down at a computer and have you tell me the price of a video game?
You can usually tell pretty easily the difference in (art/etc) resources spent on a big budget title (e.g. Call of Duty) and those spent on a smaller title, like Darwinia or Little Inferno or Angry Birds. You can't tell me that it's a $1 vs $3 game, but you can pretty well tell the difference in the games that expect you to buy them for $60 versus those that expect to be bought for $15-$20.
