I’d wager that you could 10x for non-EU tourists and still make more money and have way less crowds leading to a better experience for all.
In your example, if we consider the environment a stakeholder, and the fact that increased safari impact has a negative impact on the ecosystem, there's a stronger argument for higher price.
In the case of the Louvre, the paintings and sculptures aren't going to be harmed by having more eyeballs on them, so, there's a stronger case to maximize access.
Maybe one day if VR becomes commoditized and freely available.
Some of the same people who don’t want to spend $300 for a Louvre ticket will happily blow thousands on visiting Disneyworld and put themselves in debt. Get outta here.
The Louvre is a public institution. as stated by their endowment fund: The Louvre is heir to a universal cultural legacy. Its duty is to bring that legacy to the widest possible audience, and pass it down enriched to future generations.
People should be entitled to visit the Louvre for cheap because that is literally their mission.
for the well-off*
Except for normal people, where $400 a ticket is absolutely prohibitive. I can't imagine being able to take a family there at that sort of price. (To be honest, even at $40 that could add up quickly.)
I firmly believe institutions like museums should be accessible by everyone. I understand higher prices for non-EU people, on the logic that they need more income somehow and tourists are more likely to be able to afford it -- so long as they keep student prices, family/children prices etc.