Well, let's think about consumption of video games, and consumption of media in general. Think of the movies. How do you value a movie? Obviously taste in movies is a really subjective thing (yes, there are "good" and "bad" movies in general, but that's beside the point). You might pay $8, an amount I just made up, in order to see "The Martian" and love it so much that you'd have been willing to pay more. But then, you might pay $8 to see a different movie and feel like you've wasted your money. Depending upon how risk-averse you are, the risk of seeing a movie that you will not like and "wasting your money" may be so great at a price higher than $8 that you just won't go see the movie at all. That's probably part of the reason why movie tickets themselves are relatively inexpensive, and why movie theater concessions are relatively expensive (also, movie theater concessions are like a miniature monopoly - they don't let you bring food in).

With video games, you have a similar case. Now, I have no idea whether the standard price for a game came to be $60 (as a primarily PC player, I usually don't pay that much), but it has been there and stayed there for quite a while now. $60 sounds like a lot of money; I could buy over a week's worth of meals for that much. But the problem for game developers is that they have the same problem that filmmakers have: taste in video games is largely subjective, and risk-averse gamers will just avoid purchasing a game at a high price if they suspect that it won't be worth their money. I, myself, have experienced both games that I would have paid over $60 for and games that I regretted spending $60 on.

So what happens if they raise the price even higher? Even if it would be necessary to recoup the costs of development, I think that game companies fear backlash and risk-averse gamers avoiding the game until the price drops. So how do they get convince risk-averse people to buy their game at $60? With pre-order bonuses. In a similar vein, they ensure that people buy their DLC through season passes. Timed exclusivity is explained by the developer thinking that partnering with a console company will give them better publicity and sales than if they marketed the game by themselves for all platforms. And microtransactions are the same sort of idea. Look at MGSV, which cost $80 million to make (apparently), and has yet to make a profit, the last I read. People were outraged by the inclusion of microtransactions in the game, but it's likely an effort by Konami to ensure that the game is actually profitable.

As a guy who plays video games, yeah, I dislike microtransactions and all of that. There are plenty of legitimate complaints that gamers have about these practices. Their implementation doesn't always go smoothly, either, and that's the fault of the developer. But, looking from the perspective of a business trying to make money, these actions do make sense.