The things you are endorsing are part of "the business model", as you call it. Tools to expand the revenue of the game without moving the base price because people have gotten so used to it.
Ask yourself how there can be a "stable upper bound" to a product for four decades when inflation in that period has literally tripled the average price of products. Especially when the budget of a game has skyrocketed not by a factor of three, but of a hundred in that time.
I've told you how. Selling more units will only go so far. The install base of a home console peaked with the PS2. Chipping away at distribution costs is a finished process. The amount brick and mortar retailers used to keep is gone. The cost of shipping is gone. The huge cost of cartridges got turned into cheap optical media and then trivial bandwidth for digital distribution. There's no more cost to shave on that front.
But because those processes kept "a stable upper bound" (not true, by the way, cart costs meant cartridge games went as high as 100 bucks, but let's roll with it). People got used to a sticker price, the industry kept finding ways to cover increasing costs while keeping the sticker price the same. Eventually that meant selling the extra cost post-release.
And yeah, that has downsides. What used to be a game experience meant to drive up-front sales is now a storefront. That's a different way to design things. It's not inherently bad, you can make good games in that model, but left to its own devices it can get very rote and intrusive. And yes, abusive if not handled correctly. It definitely needs oversight and control.
The problem is, you can't just wave a magic wand and make the economics make sense. That stuff is covering for that "stable upper bound". Costs don't follow revenue, costs follow costs and are driven by competition and the state of the art and capped by revenue. A programmer makes the money they make, not because there's game revenue flowing, but because that's what the market for all software will pay. People will, and often do, take a bit of a hit to work in an industry they like and are passionate about, but it's neither sustainable nor fair to pay people peanuts when Google is across the street paying six figures. A concept artist or a 3D modeller charges the same to GTA or to a Marvel movie. As it should be. Many would argue they don't charge enough to either.
So yeah, no, you're not looking at this the right way. Which is not to say some of the things you note aren't bad or haven't gotten worse. But you're dumbing this down a lot to fit the black and white terms of your outrage in a way that makes it more satisfying to rant about it online when the problem has a lot more nuance and many more hard constraints than you're making it out to have.
Your anger doesn't make this simple, and your anger at me pointing out that you're using your performative anger to dumb this down doesn't make it less true.