I'd gladly agree to pay more in exchange for a legally binding agreement that higher prices mean video games free of predatory monetization and reasonable pay and job security for the people making the games. But we both know that they have no intention of doing the right thing, no matter how high the box price. They're already raking in record profits while laying off huge chunks of their workforce and giving the c-suite ever-increasing annual bonuses.

They've perpetuated the lie that microtransactions were a necessity and the $60 price was unsustainable for such a long time that people actually believe it. Now they want to increase the box price while keeping the predatory monetization, having their cake and eating it too.

Yes, but the market has grown significantly and the cost of production and distribution is very low, lower than the age of cartridges. The development is the only cost.

Lots of industries have had relative price drops over that time. Mainly electronics. An mp3 player used to be $200 minimum.

Prices definitely increased, over the last 20 years new AAA games price increased from 45-50 EUR to 70 EUR.

With inflation taken into account that would probably mean flat prices.

With the increase in the numbers of players, the spread of DLCs and micro transactions, I suspect revenue increased even with inflation taken into account.

Could it be the cost of creating game is rising faster than inflation? Or game studio just got more greedy?

In America they have been. In the UK I've watched games raise from £10 on my Amstrad in the 80s to £70 on my Series X now.

What you said, but in video form https://youtu.be/VhWGQCzAtl8?si=Gj9AaniT3U46KlGF. And that came out 5 years ago. Even if we only kept up with inflation from when that video came out until now, videogames should cost $73