I'm pretty sure you'd be hard-pressed as a consumer to find silver linings in this. No one WANTS to have to dole out hard-earned cash for stuff.
But there's simply a couple points where this is hard to get riled up about for me.
For one, inflation is real. A $60 video game in 1997 with inflation is probably $85 dollars today. A price rise to $69.99 is not only overdue, it's actually not keeping pace with inflation! And likely this is for a more robust and content-full product to boot. (discussions about whether consumers are able to afford that entertainment are a completely different topic)
Another point is that one might argue that games have FALLEN in price! If you want to play a video game there are options ranging from $50 to $40 down to $14.99, $10, $2, and FREE!!! If we look at these as generally interchangeable entertainment experiences, then you absolutely don't have to buy a $69.99 game when there are so many new AND classic titles available for SO much cheaper.
But what about if you absolutely NEED that ONE game and nothing else will do? Well, aren't games a "luxury"? I'm not downplaying the importance of art and entertainment for social and intellectual edification, but I think it's a personal choice to fixate on a single game. A fun one, but it's hard to see anyone compelling us to be handcuffed to these launch purchases, these are handcuffs we put on ourselves.
There's just too many ways where complaining about the inflation of game prices sounds like a problem that's only important if you've taken care of so many other more important concerns on Maslowe's hierarchy of needs, and only if you CHOOSE to fixate on those $69.99 price points to the exclusion of other options.