So you made an entire thread about your misunderstanding. Game prices didn't increase because of game cards, they increased because game development costs rise. And of course we've had high inflation rates globally for several years.

If your wage grew at the same rate as inflation during the last eight years, then a $70 game today is more affordable than a $60 game was in 2017.

How much did the cartridges cost for NS1 versus NS2? Maybe I have a misunderstanding. I know that cost for development and such have gone up, but my theory is that the cost of the cartridge was what sent Nintendo “over the edge”.

The profit earned from a $60 GKC is actually greater than that of a $70 game-on-cartridge. Lower price = lower barrier to entry = broader market of sales. And Nintendo will not be dropping their prices, that much I know for certain. Regardless of demand. If they rode $300 Wii U with $60 games into the grave, they’re not gonna let go of $70-80USD games on NS2.

Should they fire most of their employees and make smaller games? Everyone would complain if they get in on the mass firings like Sony and Microsoft. All companies charge what they can get away with. No company, especially publicly traded companies wants to leave money on the table. You see it every day since the pandemic as companies like Chipotle went from $7 to $9, than $10, now $12. When I was a kid going to the Minnesota State fair my favorite food there the footlong hot dog was $2, this year at the fair it was $9.

Digital vs. physical prices used to be the same or else the retailers would revolt. It was a gentleman's agreement at some places, where at others there where competition laws in place to have them the same. It's strange seeing the difference here in Europe now for some games. I guess a proper bandage would be to actually give the physical version a proper paper booklet of some kind or something else additionally.

If game cards were the reason, then digital prices would have not been increased.

That doesn’t seem like a convincing reason. From what I understand (i.e. I’m not 100% sure this is true but I remember reading about it somewhere), the reason so many devs choose to charge digital and physical similarly is to make sure physical sales don’t fail to reach retailers demands. If retailers aren’t happy, they’ll stop prioritizing shelf space and marketing, greatly limiting sales (as seen, for instance, with Steam Deck. Only sells through Steam and, consequently, has only move a few million units in over five years).

Gaming has always been a luxury hobby. If prices are too high for your taste or wallet, then adjust accordingly. I used to buy games that I thought I may one day eventually get to and my backlog got huge and money wasted. But now, I only buy games that I know 100% I will play because of both the limited amount of time and money I have. And I've honestly been happier for it.

There are some things you can bully a company into doing, but historically, pricing isn't one of them. Especially if it's a platform holder.

Nintendo dont want to fight price increase and why should they.
They know people will buy anything they release no matter how ridiculous the price is.
If i was Nintendo i'd do the same.
Sheep's exist for one thing and one thing only and Nintendo know that the best.

The reasoning for digital and physical prices being the same has always sounded suspicious, especially when you consider that this allegedly necessary price parity has never stopped any developer from offering a discount on the digital version of their game. What you are left with is a cheap strategy to shift the blame for high digital prices from developers to retailers.