houses that have jumped up by 300% or more.

Yes that's why I mentioned cost of living. The thing that determines what disposable income you might have at the end of the day to spend on things like games. Which means if the wages haven't kept up super well with inflation and the cost of living, then your relative budget hasn't changed. Throwing away 60$ now is the same hit as it was back then because its still X% of what you can spend for the month.

Given that, it doesn't matter what they should cost because of economic philosophizing. In practical terms, they cost what people will begrudgingly accept paying for them. Which is the only pricepoint that exists, and everything else is retarded.

EA isn't bad because 2k is 70 bucks this year, EA is bad because half the game is locked behind lootboxes and microtransactions

So it hasn't gotten cheaper, its just changed how they charge you. Thanks, that's exactly what I said at the end there. Repeating what I said back to me doesn't somehow make you right.

Which circles right back to my original point. If they increased the install price to equal that of inflation, to let's say 100$, would they cease to also have these predatory practices in their games? We both know the answer, which also means I don't concede giving an inch towards paying someone who doesn't give a shit about me more money. We should oppose it, because history and common sense proves they will just increase the cost more without increasing the value.

And, since this seems to be the crux of your argument, you should know that you can in fact oppose two things at once. Sometimes they are even a major problem and a smaller problem!