It's a much more nuanced situation than it seems. There are ways to make games of the same size and scope we've come to expect that don't involve working people to death.
Take the RDR2 stuff, for instance. One of the big sticking points with the development of that game is that you had people who didn't have much of consequence to work on, but they still couldn't go home because it would "look bad" to bosses and be "unfair" to the people who actually were working on stuff at the time. That's one reason how you end up with stuff like dynamic horse balls, because people with nothing else really important to do at the time just say "fuck it, why not" so they are doing something. But can anyone realistically say that the horse balls made that game any better? I don't think so.
It's going to take a complete rethinking of the paradigm of game development, but I believe it's possible. Some people might still have to work long weeks at times. But don't crunch people endlessly throughout the whole dev cycle if you don't have to.
Also executives need to be paid less, workers need to be paid more, and teams need to be bigger.
There's all sorts of factors here. Tons of knobs that can be adjusted. Looking at it in two dimensions is not going to work, because you end up with solutions like "make games cost $70" which is not actually a solution at all.