As the end user why should i pay sympathetically for the extended dev time of a product that hasnt tangibly improved for my uses?

Yes the price ceiling of $70 does not do justice to games like KCD 2, but all that matters for the end user is perceived value. If the perceived value of any game isnt going up, then it is difficult to charge consumers an increased amount.

KCD 2 and Elden Ring are great examples of RPGs with content that fans perceive as a great value, but only AFTER playing.

Maybe KCD 3 or Elden Ring 2 can push their perceived value beyond $70, but the simple fact is that the majority of AAA games DO NOT offer an amount or quality of content that gamers would consider to be worth $70, especially with the tiering off of content with various editions, passes and DLC.

It is just subjective that you and i disagree about the amount of games that cross the value threshold of $70, but the evidence of a $0 cost increase for full priced games over the past decade or so definitely seems like evidence towards my perspective.

I wish i could pay more money for higher quality games with more content, but the advertising for these products happens within a reciprocal market, and that market has a mean product value of $70.

KCD 2 and Elden Ring have essentially wasted dev time/cost creating bonus content, although the value towards their brands it has created, plus the positive IP mind share, will pay off for them down the road i am sure.