If they weren't profitable at the current price they wouldn't be charging the current price.

And "budgets keep going up!"

Whose fault is that, guys? Were those numbers placed on you by a witch's curse? No. You spent $100M on one game, it made $300M, so you spend $200M on the next game. Games didn't get twice as hard to make, between those decisions. They didn't require twice as many people or twice as much time. You're just treating them like a factory where more capital in means more revenue out.

The original Doom was made in nine months by a team that fits in an elevator. Yeah, it's simpler than modern games, but they had to make the nearly-unprecedented engine and all their own tools as they went. It's not like anything's harder, now. People have basically recreated that seminal title as solo one-week game jam projects. A modern handful of professional computer nerds can pick from a handful of modern high-end toolchains and start banging out content, today.

If the market for video games only supported six-digit budgets - there would still be video games. Big ones, fancy ones, creative ones, whatever. Would they be the spectacles that currently get advertised to death? Nope. But they also wouldn't produce as many unstable bug-fests as those sprawling mega-projects. Nor would they be announced in 1999, previewed in 2006, delayed in 2017, and launched to middling reviews in 2025.

Studios that aren't injected with obscene capital and forced to deliver "AAA" money-trees tend to shoot their shot and move on to the next game. That's how they survived and grew as plucky little private affairs, before some publishers swallowed them whole and turned them into a sequel factory for their breakout hit.

If your games cost too much money to fail, stop giving them more money.