Here’s an idea I have: Nintendo should offer two versions of physical software— (i) GKC & (ii) full-game-on-cartridge. They stick with their current pricing scheme in the latter instance, and cut the price down $10USD for the former version. With how expensive 64GB cartridges are, it’s no surprise Nintendo has chosen the route of pumping up prices. (Otherwise, they’d be earning $10USD less in profit for every NS2 game sold in comparison to NSW. (It is estimated that cartridges for NS2 are around $10USD more expensive than for NS1)…which is especially problematic when taking into account the tariffs, increased labor costs, and general inflation.)

I've long believed digital games should be $5-$10 cheaper at least than their physical counterparts. This rarely happens unless a game is a Limited Run physical release.
The sad thing is that I believe Nintendo would up physical games to $80 and $90 while keeping digital games $70 and $80 for the equivalent. So, who wins? Not the customer. The digital purchases would be the same price, and the physical games would go up in price, increasing Nintendo's profit and revenue.

Looking at how they’ve handled Amiibo prices in US versus EU, I think Nintendo does have an interest in not pricing out consumers TBH. Charging so much likely hurts their bottom line, as less casual consumers — a massive demographic for Nintendo — will be interesting in forking out so much money.

The question is:

Does Nintendo WANTS to combat rising software prices?

If DLC counted The Sims 4 would probably win for most expensive game. A quick search suggests all the DLC adds up to over $1,000.

lol im sure if they can get away with it, they’ll do it. Once the MKWorld bundle is over, MKWorld costing $80USD will be the ultimate test of whether they can continue pulling this stunt. I really don’t foresee that game selling too hot once it’s without the bundle.

Clearly, they do not want to. While they haven't always been an instigator of increasing prices (they usually follow in that regard), they are by far the worst offender of milking gamers for every possible dollar they can. There ain't no chance in hell they want to stop the increase in prices of games. They'd stick a vacuum right in your pocket and suck the cash out of your wallet if they thought they could get away with it. 

I'm a fan of Nintendo games. So, I buy their stuff. But, from the gamer's perspective, I find them to be the least gamer friendly of all the major video game companies.  They're spending less to develop games, and charging higher average prices for those games (because they keep the prices of the games high for years after release). They also sold many millions of units of a known faulty product (joycons) for 10 years, and continue to sell them.  They could have developed new joy-cons at least 7 years ago to take care of this issue. But, they chose to keep selling a product that they knew to be of poor quality. It's one of the scummiest things I can think of a video game company ever doing.

I really don't like their business practices.

They can start by not being the main proponent of it.

Not since they gave up their "Player's Choice" / "Nintendo Selects" lines.

Why should they? People keep buying their games. So everything is fine and dandy. Supply and demand. The moment demand drops, prices will also drop. The cost of the cartridges or something doesn't even matter.

So if you want Nintendo to drop their prices, simply stop buying the games. It is the only thing you as a customer can do. Sadly I won't support you, since I don't care too much about 10 or 20 bucks when it's for something that I really want to have. I know I'm paying way more than neccessary, but I'm fine with that. Same as people who happily pay 50 % margins for their iPhones. The value of a good is more than just the cost of manufacturing, research and development.

Making two versions for each game would just be additional cost for Nintendo. They have no reason whatsoever to go that route and I believe they would have a hard time explaining such a move to the shareholders.