Yep sure did.
It's tough because we're so used to $60-70 being the benchmark for games, but development for games has gotten bonkers expensive, and adding inflation it's probably justified (along with the CAD only bing $0.73 USD right now). I still remember SNES games that broke $90 back in the day.
One of the bigger problems is that game pricing seems pretty 'fixed' regardless of game. Original games or games with new ideas, rich plots or characters (DD being a good exampled, BG3, etc) cost the same as 'Generic Activision Shooter 12: Reskin of GAS 11' or 'Sports Annual 23: Slightly different roster than SA 22!', despite vastly more game content and development.
Indie games are more variable price wise, but AAA development doesn't really reflect content, quality or price of development. I realize it's largely a result of console makers setting the norm for game pricing and every dev wanting to charge the most they can, but it feels like there should be a variance of $10-15. It'll never happen, but the situation is definitely one where pricing isn't necessarily reflective of dev costs or quality.