How much I want to play it.

All I know is that I'm not paying £75 for one video game. GTA, MK or anything else.

It's very rare I buy a game at full price, I don't think I've ever spent more than around £40 on one.

The few games I've got day one: AC New Horizons, Crash/Spyro/CTR, Pokémon Sword were all £40 or less to preorder.

I do not base a games value on how much I enjoyed it.
Being able to enjoy a piece of entertainment media is the entire purpose of its existence from a consumers perspective.

Games I didnt enjoy = have no value
Games I do/did enjoy = have a value
Think of this as true/false rather than something expressed as an integer

The more I enjoyed a game, the more likely it is that I will try out other games from that developer or that i will also buy a potential successor. But my enjoyment has no bearing on the price I am willing to pay.

The value in terms of "is it worth the price", is - at least to me - a comparison.
How much are others charging?
Are they charging the price justifiedly or are they just mimicking/matching the pricing of others?
How much had the developer to sacrifice (money, time, opportunities, ...) to make the game?

Generally I can say that the lower the budget the less a game is worth.
However, just having a high budget aint creating worth either. If the money was wasted, then theres no value either.

And I think I have a point.
In a fictional exaple: How much are you willing to pay for a game, which every single one of you can re-create with low-code/no-code solutions within 5 minutes?

-----

There are more things I consider, but I will leave it at that for now.

This is essentially a question answered by Microeconomics.  Value is subjective to each person.  Each person has a gut feeling of how much something is worth.  When you set the price, some with say it is too high and others will feel they are getting a great deal.  If a person thinks a game is worth $150, then $80 seems like a great deal.  However, if people think the game is only worth $60, then $80 is too high, and they won't buy it.

However, I want to make another important point.  The people buying Mario Kart World at launch are not paying $80 (in the US).  They are paying $500.  This is not a trivial point.  This is what makes console sales happen.  A person needs to value Mario Kart World at $500 in order to buy it at launch.  If the game is only worth $80 to them, then they won't buy the console.  This is why the idea of a killer app is important.  A game can't just be good to be a killer app.  It needs to be "must have".  The person must feel they'll do whatever it takes to get this game.  That makes them pay the big price of the console.

For example, I tried Ultima Online at a friend's house shortly after it released.  Even though I didn't have a PC at the time, I went out and bought a $1000 PC (1997 dollars).  For me the game was "must have".  They had just invented the MMO genre.  Where else would I play a game like this?  Likewise some people bought a Wii for $250 and only played Wii Sports.  In 2006, Wii Sports was a one of a kind game.  Where else would they play a game like that?  Wii Sports was a "must have" game for a lot of people.

So, game value is subjective to each person.  But an important factor for Mario Kart World is if it can convince a person to buy a console.  A person needs to have a very high value for a game in order for it to be a killer app, and they experience it by feeling it is a "must have" experience.

Thanks for your comment! The Lunar collection physical edition just went up for sale on Amazon today, if you’re interested.

It has to be a mix of things tbh.

From the choices you gave:
The size of the budget - Yes this matters to me, if its a cheap indie game, and they are asking for a high price, its greed.
How it pushes the technological envelope - does not matter to me, if the game looks good (like what nintendo title is pushing technology?).
Novelty and innovation - does not matter to me, if the game looks good.
Critical consensus - does matter, if tons of people think something is good or bad, there is typically a reason for it.
The amount of content it offers - Yes, this is a big one. If you pay a ton for a game, you expect it to have lasting effect, or atleast be very memorable.
How much I personally enjoy it - Yes, if you pay alot for a game, and hate it..... that's just the worst thing ever.
Resale value - I don't sell games, its just wasted money if I don't enjoy it (give away or toss out). Plus most are digital. Doesn't factor in at all.

I doubt that a lot of people look at a console purchase like that, because if it would be like you say, PlayStation wouldn't sell well and Xbox not at all. What actually leads to console sales is a combination of games that someone looks forward to (when the purchase happens during the launch window) or a combination of games that are already available. The number of games differs by person, but for most people it's up to five, rarely more.

Also, the entire idea of a killer app is a lot less important for a proven value. Switch 2 isn't Switch 1 that was surrounded by doubt. Switch 2 is the successor to an incredible popular system with a consistent release schedule and Switch 2 isn't showing any signs of changing that.

Hours of good content

It can be updates, quests or simply a gameplay loop that allow me to comeback from time to time and replay

Thinking on games like platformers, they are generally short and I hardly have interest in replaying them, so they are out of my full price list. I've bought Astrobot, it's an awesome game yes but I've paid 70 USD and played like 20h and never touched it again

In other hand I've played Triangle strategy 4 times, to choose between different characters and routes, over 150 hours of gameplay. It was totally worth the 60 USD

Edit:

A good way to tackle that is creating deep gameplay that allows you to experience the same game differently. Dark Souls 3 might need 35 to 50h to beat (which is already pretty nice) but it has a level design of maps and quests that make you experience it differently in a second playtrough, granted you're now using guide to 100%. It always yield at least a second playtrough, and the fact the builds are pretty open and the weapons moveset different it makes the experience of some bosses completely different. Only to rotate between the main type of damage stats need you to go at least 4 playtroughs. As result a game that is supposed 40h hours long can easily turn into 160 hours long 

Mostly a matter of my personal interest in any given game. There are very, very few games I would consider paying full price for, and no game I can think of that I would pay upwards of 80 euros for. In the last five years I've bought two games at full retail price at or near launch, those being Elden Ring and Final Fantasy VII Rebirth, and in those instances the quality of the games more than justified the asking price in the end.

Those are, as mentioned, very rare exceptions, and in 99% of the cases I'm more than happy to wait until a game's price drops months, or even years, down the line. That's how I've gotten games like The Witcher 3 for 15 euros, Sea of Stars for 10 euros, or Armored Core VI for 28 euros, all new and unopened. A game's worth simply comes down to how much I enjoyed my time playing it, regardless of how long the game is or how much content it has. The size of a game or the length of its story is a meaningless measure of quality, it the content found within is dull, annoying, forgettable, or just bad.

I measure it by how much I love it. Which kinda sucks when buying new games. lol

The amount of content it has and its replay value