I didn't go into game development, even though that's why I started to learn programming, precisely for this reason.
While I hope that the issues you mention above plus the cycle of game launching after a massive deadline crunch leading to development teams searching for new jobs (ie less stability), I don't know that it will happen. Why? People buying games.
Personally, I tend to buy the top tier of a game if for no other reason than they typically include the game/season pass (or whatever branding they go with) so that I don't have to manage it after the fact, of the games or expansions I bought recently, they've been the highest tier available: Assassin's Creed Odyssey, State of Decay 2, World of Warcraft Battle for Azeroth, Tekken 7, Destiny 2 Forsaken (which I really haven't played. Still in the Osiris area. Eh, oh well), Ghost Recon Wildlands, The Division. To me, the fidelity of the graphics and scope of the games (in that most everyone is chasing epic stories now and if it isn't 30+ hours, it is too short) means the price should bump up beyond $60 so while the tiers of games seems like a dirty move, it seems to me that it is so they can sell you $60 worth* of a $100 game instead of you looking at a $100 game and scoffing entirely.
So basically, until people purchasing games are willing to accept that a AAA game in 2019 takes more resources to create than a AAA game in 2009, I don't see this ever getting better.
* the $60 version is a full game and not 60% of one though so in reality at that price point you're getting way more value.
This is simply a marketing line, not reality. EA, Activision, and Rockstar are making record profits, not struggling to meet budgets. The base price of a game as you point out, gets you less than a whole game, for which you need to buy a season pass (sometimes as many as three of them) they have product tie-ins (Pizza rolls, Dew), they have DLC om-disc and off, and a world of microtransactions abusing gambling mechanics, and the disgusting โLive Servicesโ model.
>The base price of a game as you point out, gets you less than a whole game...
This has become a meme at this point [1], but has anyone actually studied this in any type of academic or scientific manner? There are plenty of the games that have DLC, after release support, or any number of other revenue streams that would 100% be considered "complete games" by any reasonable standard. I know it is anecdotal, but compare Zelda: Breath of the Wild to Zelda: Ocarina of Time or FIFA 19 to FIFA 08. The release versions of the two newer games were probably more complete than the older versions even though they have DLC and micro-transactions respectively while the older were "done on release". In those two cases the extra revenue streams are helping to justify and pay for the continued support of the newer games.
Those are outliers. Game industry have very small margins on average, it however tend to be hit or nothing. If you follow the news, studios are closing right and left.
But, the crunch does not happen because it would be effective. It is not effective way to create something. It happen because of mismanagement and culture that glorifies it - both among managers and workers. Crunch is more related to desorganization and lack of trust then something that would be smart to do.
beyond adding more story or visual add ins, what is a game that can't be completed without DLC? Never played Battlefront 2 (or 1 for that matter) and those tend to be tossed out there so I can't confirm or deny that one.
Diablo 3 base game - if you beat that, have you not beat the game? The DLC adds a new act to it, but for all intents and purposes it is an add on to a game.
What sometimes happens is that developers will create a game and then, very close to the end, some portions will be hacksawed out and turned into dlc. If done poorly, this can be very obvious and can ruin the game - the last Deus Ex game seemed to suffer from this.
This not standard practice. DLC plans will be specified at a high level early in production but will only solidify as the game gets closer to ship. There is a gap, which differs for different disciplines, between finishing work for the shipping build and its actual release. DLC is a great opportunity for the team to continue working at peak production on new content.
I've never seen content held back or cut out of a main release explicitly for the purpose of including in DLC. What sometimes happens is that features or half-finished content that the team decided to cut from the game is revisited for DLC. From my perspective as a game developer, modern games are never finished but at some point you have to start shipping things. DLC is an opportunity to explore ideas that would have otherwise been left on the cutting room floor, and provide some stability for large teams as they ramp down from full production.
I purchase most of my games on sale on steam for under 30 bucks. That's what they are worth to me, and clearly that's what they are worth to the publisher as I'm purchasing them legitimately.
Games made in 2019 have a larger audience than games made in 2009. I don't pay 600 dollars for a ticket to see a movie with a 300 million dollar budget. I pay the same as a movie with a 10 million dollar budget. Memento had a 9m dollar budget; I have not been 30x more entertained with a movie than Memento.
While I hope that the issues you mention above plus the cycle of game launching after a massive deadline crunch leading to development teams searching for new jobs (ie less stability), I don't know that it will happen. Why? People buying games.
Personally, I tend to buy the top tier of a game if for no other reason than they typically include the game/season pass (or whatever branding they go with) so that I don't have to manage it after the fact, of the games or expansions I bought recently, they've been the highest tier available: Assassin's Creed Odyssey, State of Decay 2, World of Warcraft Battle for Azeroth, Tekken 7, Destiny 2 Forsaken (which I really haven't played. Still in the Osiris area. Eh, oh well), Ghost Recon Wildlands, The Division. To me, the fidelity of the graphics and scope of the games (in that most everyone is chasing epic stories now and if it isn't 30+ hours, it is too short) means the price should bump up beyond $60 so while the tiers of games seems like a dirty move, it seems to me that it is so they can sell you $60 worth* of a $100 game instead of you looking at a $100 game and scoffing entirely.
So basically, until people purchasing games are willing to accept that a AAA game in 2019 takes more resources to create than a AAA game in 2009, I don't see this ever getting better.
* the $60 version is a full game and not 60% of one though so in reality at that price point you're getting way more value.