As for games being too cheap, like, I feel like there isn't any good evidence of that? Triple-A developers are making record breaking profits year over year, so $60 games can't be all that unsustainable for them. Usually people say that DLC or live service crap is what's making up the difference on that, but then you have studios like From Software, CD Projekt RED, or Larian Studios who are doing just fine making extremely content-rich titles for $60 and still pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars. The argument I usually see is inflation, but, like, increasing the price of goods along with inflation isn't a great argument if you're still making massive profits. Plus games don't have the same licensing fees or physical media requirements that games have historically had, so comparing modern prices to prices even a decade ago is not a fair comparison. I just don't really understand the argument that games are too cheap at $60, the numbers don't really add up.
The other thing I find frustrating about games being underpriced, well, why does that only go one way? If we are going to charge for what games are worth, why does that only go one direction? Animal Crossing: New Horizons is not a $60 game. There just isn't enough content on offer there. If we're going to talk about games needing to cost more money, then we should also have a conversation about triple-A titles coming down in price to match the content they offer. I absolutely think Tears of the Kingdom is a $70 game, but I think it'd only justify that price if Nintendo wasn't charging $60 for games that lack even remotely a comparable amount of content. They can't just have their cake and eat it too. Either charge the same $60 for everything, or charge based on what the games are actually worth.
Also, shout out to Cassette Beasts for being made in Godot
Hell yeah FOSS let's goooo.