Games are expensive in general, especially AAA new titles. But to say they are stealing from customers seems a bit disengenuous. Game prices have barely changed in 20 years, if anything they've gotten cheaper. PS games are often less than Nintendo, and if you aren't fussed with waiting they tend to drop in price dramatically after a year.
Most polished titles can take many years and huge teams to make and provide 20+ hours of entertainment. Which is a lot more bang than a 2 hour film.
The only problem I have is with digital titles charging the same as a physical title. Theoretically the cut in brick and mortar, printing and 3rd party mark ups should be shared with the customer who no longer has a physical copy to hold or resell and needs and account and internet to enjoy.
the point isn't the prices, it's that Sony can control the prices as they have the only store on playstation.
Honestly it's doubtful that this will go anywhere, and like all class actions the reality is that it's to stuff a lawyers pocket more than get any restitution but I think the idea of saying you shouldn't have a monopoly on hardware is a right thing.
Microsoft, Nintendo, Apple - all guity of the exact same thing, they just picked sony because the other three have much stronger legal arms probably
I find it hard to be impartial about this because i'm dealing with a deep enough backlog that I'll either buy launch week if it's something I'll play with my family or 3 years later when it's discounted >50% (if it hasn't dropped on GP or PSN in the meantime). I'm probably getting most of my library at a discount but I still agree that full price digital is usually a rip off.