The standard for games like Minecraft have changed dramatically, so if something like Minecraft came out today and has as many features, the expectation would be a $20 or $30 price point.
There's a game called Space Engineers that trumps Minecraft and No Man's Sky in depth and scope, its $24.99 for an early access copy while also being in the $5 tier in a current humble bundle. The devs have made smart and fair decisions for their game.
No Man's Sky being $60 will probably end up being a fairly smart strategy, but it doesn't seem fair or justified, not even close. People will pump hundreds or thousands of dollars into free to play games, doesn't mean the devs are justified in asking for $200 as a base price point in the future.
EDIT:
Also $60 dollars is a perfectly fine price point for games. I and many others rate the quality of a purchase on $ per hour of entertainment. Movies are a shit value in that regard, $15 for 2 hours of entertainment (and that's not including the price of snacks). Most $60 games that I've enjoyed have given me 20 hours or more of entertainment. $3 per hour? That's a fucking value.
So you've been dissatisfied with AAA games lately that cost $60, or rather, No Man's Sky is way better than those games, and yet you're fine with that $60 price point?
