Clearly, you think that if we are apathetic and otherwise nonplussed about a $10 price increase on video games (which are indeed recreational, non-essential goods) than we're evil capitalists who worship all corporations. So no, I won't bother trying.
You decided to take the effort to explain yourself, which is a good thing, and then for some strange reason claimed you would actually not bother to do the thing you just did.
Being nonplussed about the price increase is exactly the problem. It's viewing the situation as a matter of personal finances, when it's more important to think about it as a societal issue.
The companies were already making enormous profits off these AAA games. Why do we suddenly need to increase the price 10 dollars? Has there been some sort of cost increase in the capital or labor that has significantly diminished the companies profits? Are the extra 10 dollars being used to increase the salary of the laborers? Will it be used to make their lives better? Will it end crunch time? Or did the companies just see the opportunity to use the hardware change as a moment in time where it would be socially acceptable to jack up the cost to make more profits? What's more important on a societal level--- increasing the availability of a recreational resource or letting a company make more profit. Note, we are not talking about just making a profit period, we are simply discussing making more profit.
They have made it harder for people to entertain themselves to simply line their own pockets even more for the simple reason that they can. They are allowed to do this because they shape society's views on what is an acceptable standard of living. They have created a false dichotomy about essential and non-essential goods. They have convinced people that they should be the arbiters of who deserves recreational products and who do not.
Is recreation essential to humans? Do you think people who live in poverty do not deserve recreation? Do you think that because they cannot afford it then they don't deserve to dictate what type of recreation they should consume? Maybe we shouldn't let the market answer basic questions of morality and quality of life.
Am I the only one who thinks the world is objectively better with a higher quality of life than in 2020 than in all of human history?
Capitalism has deep flaws and needs structural reforms, but it's not like we haven't tried centrally planned economies that determine the prices of labor and goods.
They failed. AND they stifled creativity.
Should games be $70? Beside the point. Better question is who should get to decide, and we don't have any answer better than "the market."
The world is always getting better because of improving technology. That does not mean, as you correctly pointed out, that we should stop regulating corporations. The two things actually have nothing to do with each other. The price of other goods in our current society are decided by factors other than the market-- things like produce, fossil fuels, and medical education-- via means of subsidies, price setting, etc...
If you told game manufacturers they were not allowed to raise the price to 70 dollars, the games industry would not collapse. The big publishers wouldn't pack up their bags and go elsewhere. They would continue to produce and just... *gasp*, make less of a profit.
