In Europe we've had Breath of the Wild (March 2017) and Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (December 2018) go for €70 instead of Nintendo's typical €60, so the answers to your two questions aren't difficult to imagine. Eventually Nintendo games will cost $70 in the USA, but most likely that will be only for the absolutely massive brands that feature a tremendous amount of content instead of Nintendo issuing a roundabout price hike. Aside from that, with the costs going up for almost everything in life right now, people are already quite numb in response to price increases, so video games following suit won't be a surprise to anyone.

As for the cost difference between blu-rays and cards, in 2017 ZhugeEX said that there's no difference for a third party publisher between a 50 GB blu-ray and an 8 GB card. That was five years ago, so today it's safe to assume that a 16 GB card has taken that spot, hence why they've been used so commonly for a while now. 32 GB cards remain more expensive, but when you consider compression rates that have no difficulty to bring down a file size to 25-33% of its original size without sacrificing content, then there aren't actually all that many games that cannot fit on a 16 GB card. Switch game cards are read-only memory just like blu-rays, hence why they are so cheap to produce; there's no rewriteable portion on the game cards, so all game saves are on the internal memory of Switch consoles.

I do believe some games with high fidelity are too big for Switch cards. Let's say a game like The Last of US 2 which assets are so high quality that it came with two discs, one to install and another to play. Not needed to be said these games wouldn't be playable on Switch anyway as the console itself cannot render the game

I can't think any game that can run on Switch that can't be compressed in a 30 GB file, unless devs come with a very good explanation of why they cannot compress the game for whatever reason

So when developers are saying something about the games being too big to cards is most likely to be... well lies. They just don't want to spend money using more expensive storage. 

I'm aware of inflation, but sticker-shock is a thing too. Back in the late PS1 era, new games were $39.99 USD. Then it went to $49.00. Then to $59.00. Now, they're selling some for $69.00, which to me, is already too much. So going higher than that is just a hard no--even with inflation. If prices keep going up, I'll probably end up reverting back to the way my parents spent money on them back in the 80's and early 90's. I'll buy like four during the course of a console cycle, and that's about it. The rest will be rentals.

I've bought exactly one first party Switch game for 60€, everything else for less.

Well LRG is gone off on a bit of a tangent. They do their own LRG which have the actual numbering of theirs and now they also distribute for other devs not under the limited run numbering scheme. There have been man complaints of some of those "other" games not working as they should and promised, so now with that you have o be careful. I believe Doom was one of those that had some sort of issues.

or provide 1080p textures instead. They probably just want to port it with the 4K or 8K textures instead of recompress to 1080p textures and probably uncompressed audio files which would be compressed.

"Compressing algorithm" AKA not including high quality textures, audio files, prerendered video files...

Yes, but only if they added the (optional) ability to keep the save file on the cartridge as well. 

There's no good reason for a Switch game to cost more than $60.

Witcher 3 used the largest card size available and IIRC that was still $60, and that was 3 years ago.

Card size is not as big an issue as some companies would have us believe; over and over throughout Switch's life it has been proven that even games that are several times too large on other platforms can be scaled down enough to fit. Some publishers just want to cut corners and pass the cost on the customer.

Only if it's zelda