amok: Why?
edit: Lets take KSP. There is at least 12 people working on that team. it has been in development since 2011, that's 4 years, so you need to pay 12 people 4 year salaries. Lets say they get $10.000 a year? thats under minimum wage, I think.... but any way.... that makes it 12*4*10.000 = $600000. Selling at $30 a pop means they need to sell 20.000 copies just to get the cost of the salaries recuperated. We are now not even talking about other cost such as renting space, getting equipment and software. And it is way bellow minimal wage... not to mention legal costs...
Wishbone: While that's a very nice calculation and everything, it fails to acknowledge a few simple realities. The price of a game does not magically become "fair" simply because the people behind it need to cover their costs. What if those same 12 people had spent 8 years on the game, rather than 4, and produced the exact same game in the end? Would it then make sense for them to charge €80 for it rather than the €40 they charge (me) now? What if there'd been 24 of them rather than 12? Should it cost €160?
I paid €35 for GTA5. Compared to the production value of that, charging €40 for KSP is... unrealistic.
To be honest, leaving all calculations aside, I personally feel that the value of a "thing" is the price a majority is willing to pay for it. In the case if KSP, it seems that most people are willing to pay $30 for it, and therefore becomes the facto value for that game. The is neither an increase or decrease in any value, it is valued at $30. If someone price themselves out of the bracket when they can earn enough monies recoup all costs they are either a) pricing the game wrongly or b) mismanaging the project.
In case of KSP, it seems the at neither of the above happened, and they seems to have hit the golden middle way. So the value of KSP is $30. And it is not an increas in any way.