Yes, but suddenly having a 100,000, or possibly even a 20,000, when the previous maximum has only been 5,000 would NOT be fair, because it is outside the range of reasonable expectation. I understand the “gamble vs save for later” logic, but I don’t think that would apply to the situation suggested in this post. I’ve personally picked up a couple games that I know I like (Surgeon Simulator and The Pit), while also taking gamble on one I wasn’t sure on (Dropsy), but I only did so when Dropsy was close to selling out and with the knowledge that it would be that long before I got back above the 2500 coin range again, which means I’d only likely have a chance of missing out on a 5000 gold game, since that so far has been the maximum price. Brigador was one of the first games available so people knew that to get it they’d have to save and not get the other games, so I would claim it should be reasonable to expect that a game that you want will be at most within a couple thousand coins of 5000. Too much more than that would be unreasonable.
Of course this is all a subjective matter of opinion, but I believe that at the very least my stance is based in some pretty solid statistics and logic.
(Also for slight clarification, since I like to reread my arguments before posting them, I’m trying to think about this long term with the numbers I used, obviously no one could get a 100,000 or 20,000 coin game now, but if they suddenly showed up in the future and the only ones able to get them were people saving coins past the reasonably expected max cost, I don’t think that would be fair. I think the absolute max cost any game should have right now in the short term is 10,000 and ONLY if people are made aware of such costly game being possible enough ahead of time to reasonably having a chance to save up for one. Not for saving for a specific 10,000 coin game, but for saving for a 10,000 coin game in general.)