$59.99.... $69.99.... It don't matter. I'm still buying games only at $19.99 or less.

Unless we’re talking about Nintendo, or maybe NISA or Xseed, the latter scenario will never happen. A $100 EActubi game will still be worth $10 a year later. A lot of that comes down to the way those companies sell their products. 

adblock for mobile?

Micro transactions, online passes etc first cropped up to stem the supposed losses from second hand sales. Now they are there to recoup money lost from sales or 'giving' away games with ps+ / games with gold. Nintendo has far less of these practices exactly because Nintendo games tend to stick to the same price. No need for nickel and diming if your revenue doesn't drop like a brick after a month.

Instead of a price hike, make games worth keeping and don't devalue them a month after release. Micro transactions will probably only get worse with $70 games. Faster price drops, more people waiting for price drops etc. I wouldn't mind to pay more up front myself to get rid of nickel and diming practices but I fear the opposite will happen.

I'm actually not against the Google Stadia model, buy a game full price, get lifelong access. Except they want both, monthly fee and buy the game... I wouldn't mind paying $120 for the next flight simulator if that would give me streaming access to it on xCloud for its life cycle. I simply don't like subscriptions, season passes and what not.

Even on desktop the CoD ads cover the entire screen sometimes.

I already can't stand games with trillions editions and predorder bonusses that give shit for what you pay to only ask for more money later to buy dumb basic things that should have been in the game in first place,hello Ubisoft,EA,Activision.

I'm afraid those negatives won't dissapear if i pay them more,not with those companies.

Fuck id pay $100 if I got the game day one that didn't require GBs of day 1 patches, dlc, season passes etc. I do not buy any of that crap.

This is the main reason there is a lot of games I do not buy any more. COD is a good example. They removed the single player, I said fuck you. Haven't bought a COD game since, wouldn't even have a clue if it is back in or not.

Again.  Maybe you are right.  Maybe none of this is Sony's fault.  The PS3 lost Sony tons of money, but at least it wasn't their fault, right?  The PS5 can lose tons of money too, but hey, at least it won't be their fault.  Game prices go up and it's never Sony's fault, but they still bear all of the consequences.  

I'm not sure why you think it matters so much whose fault it is.  If their system fails again like the PS3, then blaming other companies won't magically make them succeed.

lol you're trolling me right?? 

I think you desperately need a lesson in how business and economics work.

But ya im done talking to you.  Like I said before, nothing you say makes any sense with no proof that game price increase is Sony's fault.  

You gotta be pretty 'special' to think Sony has control over the game prices for the entire video game industry *facepalm

Sony must be the one that mandate Nintendo doesn't drop the price of their games sometimes for over 5 years.